COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT Implementation of Article 325 TFUE by the Member States in 2013 Accompanying the document REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL Protection of the European Union's financial interests - Fight against Fraud Annual Report 2013
Date: 2014-07-17
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: European Anti-fraud Office, customs fraud, fraud against the EU, general budget (EU), judicial cooperation, tax evasion













EUR-Lex - 52014SC0243 - EN











|



52014SC0243

COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT Implementation of Article 325 TFUE by the Member States in 2013 Accompanying the document REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL Protection of the European Union's financial interests - Fight against Fraud Annual Report 2013 /* SWD/2014/0243 final */









COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT Implementation of
Article 325 TFUE by the Member States in 2013
TABLE OF
CONTENTS
1........... Implementation of Article 325 TFEU
by Member States............................................ 4
1.1........ The 2013 PIF Questionnaire......................................................................................... 4
1.2........ Structure of the Questionnaire...................................................................................... 5
2........... Most important anti-fraud
measures adopted by Member States in 2013 under Article 325 TFEU           5
2.1........ Domain......................................................................................................................... 5
2.2........ Types of adopted measures.......................................................................................... 8
2.2.1..... Examples of measures taken within
the public procurement...................................... 11
2.2.2..... Examples of measures taken in the
fight against corruption...................................... 12
2.2.3..... Examples concerning measures taken
in the area of financial crime.......................... 12
2.2.4..... Examples concerning measures taken
in the area of conflict of interest.................... 13
2.3........ Schemes summarising the measures
adopted............................................................. 13
2.3.1..... Legislative measures................................................................................................... 13
2.3.2..... Administrative measures............................................................................................. 25
2.3.3..... Organisational measures............................................................................................. 35
2.3.4..... Operational measures.................................................................................................. 40
2.3.5..... Corruption in public procurement –
adopted provisions in detail.............................. 47
3........... Anti-Fraud Co-ordination Service (AFCOS)............................................................. 52
3.1........ Appointment of AFCOS............................................................................................ 52
3.2........ Legal basis of Anti-Fraud Co-ordination Service....................................................... 55
3.3........ Organisation of AFCOS............................................................................................. 56
3.3.1..... Organisation of AFCOS – STRUCTURE................................................................. 57
3.3.2..... Organisation of AFCOS – CENTRAL
CONTACT POINT..................................... 59
3.4........ Functions accomplishes by AFCOS........................................................................... 60
3.4.1..... Training and antifraud prevention.............................................................................. 61
3.5........ AFCOS internal organisation..................................................................................... 61
3.6........ Human resources......................................................................................................... 62
3.7........ Tasks and powers........................................................................................................ 65
3.7.1..... Coordination competences......................................................................................... 66
3.7.1.1.. Irregularity management framework.......................................................................... 67
3.7.1.2.. Exchange of information............................................................................................ 68
3.7.2..... Investigative competences.......................................................................................... 69
3.8........ Cooperation with judicial
authorities.......................................................................... 72
Implementation
of Article 325 tfeu by member states
Article 325(5) of the TFEU  requires the
Commission, in cooperation with the Member States, to submit a report each year
to the European Parliament and the Council on the measures taken to implement
that Article. The Commission bases the part of the report relating to the
Member States on the answers to the “Article 325” questionnaire, as agreed upon
with them within COCOLAF and adapted each year in the light of past experience
so as to facilitate the monitoring of anti-fraud measures.
Consequently, each year, the Commission draws
up a report in cooperation with the Member States on the measures taken to
implement this obligation, according to Article 325 of the Treaty on the
Functioning of the European Union (TFEU). This report is addressed to the
European Parliament and the Council and it is published.
The Commission report is drafted on the basis
of the Member States' answers to the "Article 325" questionnaire sent
by the Commission to the Members States. The present questionnaire covers the
period from 1 January to 31 December 2013.
This document lists all the answers of Member
States to the 2013 questionnaire presented in schemes according to a category.
Over time the report had become more and more
voluminous. Both the Council and the European Parliament were concerned that
its size was increasing and the fact that the document is annual, horizontal
and multisectoral hampered a detailed assessment of all the aspects of the
protection of the EU’s financial interests by the Member States. Since 2003,
the Commission has therefore applied a new approach. After the traditional
question asking Members States to report on new measures taken in the past year
(2013), the questionnaire focuses on one major theme. The aim is to gather
information on a particular topic which goes beyond the measures taken in the
course of a calendar year, thereby allowing a more detailed analysis of that
topics. The topic changes from year to year.
As in the previous years, the first part of the
questionnaire asks the Member States to present the main measures that give
effect to Article 325, i.e. measures to combat fraud and all illegal
activities affecting the financial interests of the EU. This part is structured
the same way as the 2012 questionnaire. Member States are invited to describe
two or three "key" measures taken in the year 2013 in order to
implement Article 325 of the Treaty.
The second set of questions concerns the organisation
of the Anti-Fraud Co-ordination Service (AFCOS).
1.1.        The
2013 PIF Questionnaire
In the past, the questionnaire was mainly
composed of “open” questions, implying the possibility for the Member States to
provide very detailed answers and this resulted in increasing difficulty in the
analysis of the information transmitted in two ways: Firstly, non-homogeneity
of the replies and secondly, time-management related issues and the further
need of clarification on the answers submitted. Therefore the questionnaire for
PIF 2013 has been constructed around questions offering multiple “closed”
answers with sub-questions providing further pre-selected choices (where
applicable) and limiting, to a minimum, the possibility to submit a free text. 
The questionnaire for the PIF report 2013 was
created on the EU survey online platform.  The EU Survey functions since
January 2014 and it is a new version of the old “IPM platform”, which has been
previously successfully used by OLAF for the purpose of collecting answers for
the PIF report.
1.2.        Structure
of the Questionnaire
Each year the Commission compiles a report in
cooperation with the Member States on the measures taken to implement this
obligation, according to Article 325 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the
European Union (TFEU). The Commission report is drafted on the basis of the
Member States' answers to the "Article 325" questionnaire sent by the
Commission to the Members States. The first part of the questionnaire asks the
Member States to present three main measures giving effect to Article 325, i.e.
measures to combat fraud and all illegal activities affecting the financial
interests of the EU. 
The second set of questions concerns situation
in the Member States regarding establishment of an Anti-Fraud Co-ordination
Service (AFCOS), as envisaged in Article 3(4) of the new OLAF regulation which
entered into force on 1 October 2013.[1]
2.           Most
important anti-fraud measures adopted by member states in 2013 under Article
325 tfeu
2.1.        Domain
The first question referred to the
"domain" to which the adopted measure pertains. Member States were
requested to indicate up to three measures adopted in 2013. The Member States
were asked to answer a couple of main questions clarifying on each of the
measures taken: to specify the domain, number of provisions (single or a
package of measures) and clarification of the measure (legislative and/or
administrative, organisational and operational) accompanying it, if it is a new
measure or an update, its scope, reasons of adoption, type of act, number and
date.
Public procurement was the main sector ("domain" in the questionnaire) where
legislative, administrative, organisational and operational  measures were
adopted, followed by  the ‘other’ category,  ‘financial crime‘
and ‘conflict of interest’, as shown in Table 1, which summarises “at a
glance” the information provided by the Member States. The ‘other’ category
collects measures which could not fit in any of the predefined answers and
counts 26 occurrences.
Tab.1: Three most important measures taken
by the Member States per domain – Member States have been prominently
intervening in the area of public procurement (confirmation of the trend of the
last year)
Similarily as last year, the vast majority of
legislative, administrative, organisational and operational  measures adopted
by the Member States  in 2013 were as a single measure or a package of measures[2], concerning public procurement. These provisions were mainly
adopted in combination with measures to fight financial crime, conflict of
interest, corruption, fraud, organised crime, measures concerning organisation
of  Anti-Fraud Coordination Service (AFCOS) and/or ‘other’. The totals below the scheme show how many times  the domain
referred to  in the answers, as reported by  the Member States. Further schemes
and analysis present the measures per domain in detail. 
The set of reported measures categorised as the
‘other’ involves various areas[3].
This category included a mix of answers when the Member States assumed that the
preselected domains are non-fitting, or as an additional clarification, due to
a specific context. In the ‘other’ category Member States reported transparency
and good governance measures, such as e-government[4], transparency of
beneficiary on the website[5]
or corruption in a context other than public procurement[6]. As regards
investigations, the reported measures included agreement on priority handling
and more effective detection of crimes damaging the financial interests of the
EU[7] or the set-up of a
working group of irregularities inspectors[8].
In relation to  subsidies, the  reported measures among ‘other’ involved
state aid[9],
procedures for obtaining EU funding and activity plans for controls[10], specific policy of
paying advances to reduce the number of recoveries[11], combatting fraud in
European subsidies[12]
and data monitoring  based control method[13].
As regards management and control systems, the ‘other’ category included policy
of legislation proofing against irregularities and fraud[14]. As regards IT tools
in ‘other’ category, Member States reported processing of support and payment
requests within information system[15],
Unified Management Information System[16]
or testing of the ARACHNE risk scoring tool[17].
 The ‘other’ organisational and operational
measures involved the extension of the powers within the unit[18] or establishment of a
working group of irregularities inspectors[19].
Germany listed many
activities as falling into the ‘other’ field due to the federal structure and
special cooperation of Länder and the Federation does
not enable the priority of the three main measures taken in 2013. These
included measures in the context of implementation of Article No 70 of
Regulation (EC) No 1083/2006[20],
which involves identifying and correcting undue payments and irregularities and
recovering amounts unduly paid. Moreover, in addition to the EU rules, in Germany there are national rules which serve to protect financial interests and to combat
fraud and corruption. The federal states provide advice and training on the
allocation of EU structural funding. In addition, the management and control
systems carry out checks at various levels on operations and systems.
Weaknesses and errors identified in the checks are notified and remedied and
improvements are conducted. Germany also reported that several federal states
also have anti-corruption provisions and rules regarding the acceptance of
rewards and gifts that include corruption and fraud prevention measures.  In
addition, the following measures were carried out[21]: implementing
anti-corruption guidelines, carrying out vulnerability analysis to identify
posts vulnerable to corruption, providing extensive anti-corruption training,
establishing the 'four-eyes principle,  setting up specialised or centralised
procurement authorities, issuing guidelines on 'the prevention of money
laundering, the funding of terrorism and other criminal acts',  setting up an
external ombudsman's office offering staff independent and confidential advice
on criminal infringements and appointing a central compliance officer as part
of the internal control system.
2.2.        Types
of adopted measures
Member States were asked to specify whether the
reported measure was adopted within one instrument or as a package of measures.
They also needed to specify the type of measure adopted, distinguishing
between:
(1)         
‘Legislative’,
(2)         
 ‘Administrative’, 
(3)         
‘Organisational’ and 
(4)         
‘Operational’
Tab.2:  A single measure or a package of
measures adopted by the Member States. A package of measures, involving set
provisions of (legislative, administrative, organisational and operational) or
selection of more than one provision is seen as a “more complex” measure. 
Tab.3: Single measures adopted by the Member
States (L = legislative, Ad = administrative; Or = organisational; Op=
operational)
Tab.4: Package of measures adopted by the
Member States (L = legislative, Ad = administrative; Or = organisational; Op=
Operational)
Several examples of replies as regards the
domain selected can be highlighted. 
2.2.1.     Examples
of measures taken within the public procurement
Bulgaria reported new legislation in the field
of Cohesion policy laying down a more streamlined operation (in order to reduce
the administrative burden on beneficiaries and the risk of errors and
irregularities being committed) for activities under projects co-financed from
EU funds to be outsourced to external contractors by beneficiaries who are
private operators.
Estonia reported a
package of legislative and operational measures concerning electronic public
procurement. The Public Procurement Act states that the contracting authority
must enable the electronic submission of tenders and requests at least to the
extent of no less than 50 per cent of the financial capacity of public
procurement planned by the contracting authority for the budgetary year. 
The Czech Republic reported a new legislative
measure which enables the police authorities to use operational means, such as
interception of telephonic communications (pursuant to Section 88 of the Code
of Criminal Procedure), in all cases where an examination or investigation is
conducted in respect of a criminal act committed to the detriment of the EU's
financial interests.
Spain reported a new
legislative measure regarding e-government in order to introduce electronic
invoicing and creation of an accounting register in the public sector.
The United Kingdom reported a package of
administrative and organisational measures aiming to fight corruption within
public procurement and conflict of interest. One of the measures concerns improving
the effectiveness of management: The EAFRD funded projects of lower and middle
value are under increased scrutiny, which includes also remote rural areas with
fewer suppliers.
2.2.2.     Examples
of measures taken in the fight against corruption
Hungary reported a new
operational measure introducing assessment of integrity compliance during a
check, in order to eliminate corruption (including within public procurement)
in the sector of Cohesion policy and centralised direct management.
 Malta introduced a legal act protecting
whistleblowers, thus tackling corruption in both the private and public sector.
Romania reported a
package of legislative (a new Criminal Procedure Code was implemented),
administrative, organisational and operational measures to fight corruption and
to raise institutional awareness as regards corruption and the protection of EU
financial interests. The package involves vast measures aimed at corruption
within public procurement and EAFRD private beneficiaries. 
Slovenia upgraded the
online application Supervizor, aimed at more efficient and transparent
supervision of transactions.
2.2.3.     Examples
concerning measures taken in the area of financial crime
Belgium reported a
legislative measure containing tax and financial provisions and provisions on
sustainable development within the VAT Code, which imposes penalties for
violations involving serious tax fraud. 
Bulgaria introduced a
package of measures, applied by revenue authorities, aimed at strengthening the
financial control of movements of goods of high fiscal risk to prevent tax
evasion and tax fraud.
Denmark implemented a
new legislative measure in order to improve action against economic crime. The
legislation introduces a penalty for corruption (the maximum penalty has been
increased in the Danish Criminal Code), namely for bribery of persons in a
public office or acting in a public capacity, bribery in private situations and
bribery of arbitrators.
Swedish customs developed an IT tool (in order
to comply with the requirements of the Union Customs Code), which involves an
electronic blocking system enabling checks to be made when goods are allocated
to a customs procedure. Various items will be subjected to risk analysis and
the new IT support will facilitate risk management.
France reported a
package of legislative, administrative, organisational and operational
measures, establishing, among other, more criminal sanctions to tackle
financial crime, conflict of interest and corruption within public procurement
in the sectors of customs and tax fraud.
2.2.4.     Examples
concerning measures taken in the area of conflict of interest
In the Cohesion policy sector, Slovakia reported a new guidance for managing authority, clarifying the existing rules. 
Belgium reorganised its Paying Agency in
Wallonia (agriculture and fisheries sector) separating the paying and control
functions, which should as a result reduce situations of conflict of interest.
Ireland reported an operational
measure in the form of risk indicators aimed at better targeted checks in order
to detect conflict of interest in the Agriculture sector.
Portugal reported
testing of risk indicators, using the ARACHNE information risk scoring tool[22], supplemented with
publicly available information, in order to identify the "riskier"
projects through risk indicators.
2.3.        Schemes
summarising the measures adopted
The following schemes show all administrative,
legislative, organisational and operational measures, adopted per domain and Member State. Each summary table indicates whether the adopting act was accompanied by
other measures (as a package) or whether it was a single measure, specifying if
it was a new measure or an update of existing provision(s) or both and it also
indicates the scope of the measure. If the adopted measure concerned more than
one domain, these are presented in the separate columns.
2.3.1.     Legislative
measures
This section is
dedicated to "legislative measures", i.e. those legislative
acts aimed at strengthening or reviewing the legal framework for the
management, control and protection of the EU financial interests. Member States
were asked to specify if it is a new piece of legislation, an amendment
to an existing one or both, scope of legislation, reasons, type of act, number
and date.
The legislation adopted by the Member States
can be evaluated on the basis of a couple of  main aspects.  First it is the 
main domain (and other  domains-fields covered by the legislation), its scope[23] and its impact
(sectoral or horizontal). 
As regards the domain of the legislation, 
the  new or amended provisions concerned mainly public procurement.The scope
of legislation adopted in 2013 in the areas for the protection of EU financial
interests and fight against  fraud  varied. Mostly it concerned  modifications
in  powers and competences, in combination with definition of breach, financial
or administrative penalties and criminal sanctions and/or other[24]. Criminal sanctions
were mentioned several times, however only three Member States clarified the
provision[25].
Recovery procedure was involved in two instances[26]. Time barring was also
reported twice[27].
The measures concerning  public procurement
were adopted covering one domain[28]
or in combination with another, targeting  financial crime, conflict of
interest, corruption, fraud and organised crime, all mostly with horizontal
effect[29]. The legislation involved transparency
measures, good governance measures and improved practices within the
procurement procedure[30]. 
Ten Member States introduced measures or sets
of measures aimed at combatting corruption within public procurement which
included measures to enhance transparency, effectiveness of management,
effectiveness of control and audit and other (see the chapter “Corruption
within public procurement”)[31]. These specific measures also included
operational measures with a sectoral effect[32]. 
Single measures tackling financial crime
and money laundering introduced Belgium, Cyprus, Denmark, Latvia, Poland and Finland. Denmark
introduced an increased maximum penalty within the Criminal code.[33]
The Czech Republic and Greece introduced anti-corruption measures within their national anti-corruption strategy[34]. Croatia and Netherlands adopted measures concerning their Anti-Fraud
Coordination Service[35]. Malta adopted new legislation on the protection of whistleblowers.
Legislative measure tackling VAT fraud more effectively reported Denmark and Poland[36]. Poland also introduced amended legislation to tackle organised
crime.
Specific provisions concerning EU financial
assistance in cases where the beneficiary has been sentenced were reported by Lithuania[37]. Greece introduced legislation enhancing data feeding of cases of
suspected fraud within their national monitoring and control system. Belgium introduced legislation to eliminate situations of conflict of interests within the Wallonia's Paying Agency. Portugal adopted legislation enhancing transparency by introducing
publication of information on the websites as regards reporting
subsidies and any EU support. 
Tab.5: Member States
clarified on criminal sanctions (new, less, more) within the scope of
legislation adopted
Tab.6: Member States
clarified on time barring (less or more) within the scope of legislation
adopted
The following tables
include answers from the Member States as regards legislative measures adopted,
sorted according to the revenue and expenditure part of the budget.
2.3.2.     Administrative
measures
This section is
dedicated to "administrative measures", i.e. those
non-legislative measures aimed at detailing the implementing rules for the
management, control and protection of the EU financial interests. Member States
were asked to specify if it is a new measure, update or both, the scope of the
measure, the type of act adopted, reasons of the measure and nature of the
measure (horizontal or sectoral and specific sectors concerned).
The majority of administrative measures taken
in 2013, were adopted as a single measure or within a package of measures[38],  concerned  public
procurement alone or  in addition with other domain(s), such as corruption,
conflict of interest, financial crime or fraud definition. These provisions  mostly
had sectoral effect[39]. The scope of these provisions was mostly monitoring, detection and
investigation (monitoring, desk checks or on- the- spot checks and audit
checklist) and fewer concerning irregularity reporting and recovery.
The administrative measures adopted in the
domain of public procurement included sets of provisions concerning instructions,
guidelines and manuals (new or updated) on monitoring, desk checks and on-the
spot controls[40],
completed by irregularities reporting guidance[41],
management of funds, penalty and recovery guidance[42]. 
Italy for example
introduced a special obligation as regards first level of control in order to
avoid double funding (on-the-spot checks in relation to self-declarations by
the beneficiaries – e.g. accounts verification).
Separate measures adopted included audit
checklist and investigation[43],
recovery procedure[44],
eligibility criteria[45],
penalty[46]
and irregularities reporting[47].
Other administrative measures reported by the
Member States involved various provisions, such as administrative controls
within public procurement[48],
establishment of a working group clarifying guidelines on financial crime[49], introduction of red
flags for Managing Authorities for checks in the public procurement procedure[50] or guidance for
Managing Authority to reduce situations of conflict of interest[51] .
The administrative measures relating to the
public procurement also involved introduction of specific IT tools[52]  or upgrade of the
online application[53]. 
The following tables include answers from the
Member States as regards administrative measures adopted, sorted according to
the revenue and expenditure part of the budget.
2.3.3.     Organisational
measures
This section is
dedicated to "organisational measures", i.e. those measures
aimed at impacting on the organisation of bodies competent for the protection
of the EU financial interests. The Member States were asked to specify if it is
a new measure, update or both, to specify the scope of the measure, expected
results in terms of resources, date and nature of the measure.
The organisational measures taken in 2013 again
confirm the trend of provisions adopted mainly within the public procurement
domain alone or complemented with other field (such as corruption, organised
crime, conflict of interest and other) and a few measures in otherfields[54], adopted mostly within
a package of provisions[55]
with a horizontal effect[56].
The concrete organisational measures adopted by
the Member States concerned mostly the reorganisation of existing bodies and competences
within and inter-agency cooperation[57],
general trainings and fraud awareness training[58].

Italy for example adopted
an organisational measure aimed at instructing investigative Departments about
the implementation of international cooperation for the fight against organised
crime (economic and assets recovery measures). Furthermore, the measure also
targeted investigative projects based on specific “risk scores". Portugal implemented a more robust management and control system for Cohesion policy by a merger
of the Development and Cohesion Agency, which should be an essential step for
fraud prevention and creating procedural synergies. 
The following tables include answers from the
Member States as regards organisational measures adopted, sorted according to
the revenue and expenditure part of the budget.
2.3.4.     Operational
measures
This section is
dedicated to "operational measures", i.e. those measures aimed
at increasing the performance of the control system, in terms of utilised tools
or enhance cooperation with other bodies. The Member States were asked to
specify if it is a new measure, update or both, the scope of the measure,
expected result, date and nature of the measure (horizontal or sectoral and
specific sectors concerned).
The operational measures  taken in 2013 were mainly
aimed at public procurement in combination with other domains. Several measures
have been also adopted  separately in the corruption field,  financial crime,
organised crime or regarding AFCOS service[59].
Most operational measures were adopted with sectoral effect[60].
The concrete scope of operational measures
adopted that concerned public procurement included strengthened IT tools,
web reporting and hotline[61],
enhanced with risk indicators and an increased number of checks[62]. Slovenia upgraded the IT tool support, which provides that it is no longer possible to
enter incorrect parameters. Slovenia also organised workshops (Agency for
Agricultural Markets and Rural Development) for investors in order to reduce the
error rate in public procurement and other areas. Poland introduced risk
indicators (adding dried tobacco to the risk register) in order to target
checks in the customs area. Portugal reported that it is testing ARACHNE risk
scoring tool, which comprises a database of projects supported by the
Structural Funds, supplemented by publicly available information with a view to
identifying the ‘most at risk’ projects by the use of risk indicators.
Enhanced structured cooperation with law
enforcement reported four Member States[63]. Assessment of integrity compliance during
checks introduced Hungary. France introduced flagging practice and tightening
up of controls in combating fraud in European subsidies. 
Latvia introduced a complex
operational measure[64]
targeting fraud in Agriculture, Fisheries and Cohesion Policy that includes
flagging practice, risk indicators, increased number of checks, structured
cooperation with law enforcement, structured cooperation with judicial
authorities and a matrix on the prevention of double funding published on the
website. 
Slovenia introduced measures
on priority handling and more effective detection and investigation of crimes
which damage the financial interests of both Slovenia and the EU between the
police and the Budget Supervision Office of Slovenia on the one hand and the
police and the Court of Audit of Slovenia on the other.

The following tables include answers from the
Member States as regards operational measures adopted, sorted according to the
revenue and expenditure part of the budget.
2.3.5.     Corruption
in public procurement – adopted provisions in detail
The Member States were asked to clarify
on the measures interested fraud prevention and corruption within public
procurement, please indicate which elements have been addressed. The choice included pre-set answers regarding measures against
corruption, transparency measures, and measures to enhance effectiveness of
management, control and audit. 
Ten Member States specified adoption of new (or
updated) measures aimed at fighting “corruption within public procurement”: Germany, Greece, Italy, Cyprus, Latvia, Hungary, Malta, Romania, Slovenia and United Kingdom. These measures concerned, with a few exceptions, the public sector[65], which reflects the
current trend in the measures taken to combat fraud within procurement and
responds to some extent to several recommendations from the last year[66].
The specific measures aimed at corruption that involved administration of personnel
(including the post-employment rules)[67],
introduction of the four-eye principle[68],
anti-corruption training and awareness raising[69]
were among the most frequent measures adopted within this set. Italy, Latvia and Malta also introduced provisions on the protection of whistleblowers. Debarment (black
lists) has been included in the provisions tackling corruption in Italy, Latvia and Romania. The specific transparency measures in this section involved public
disclosure of information, including disclosure of fraudsters[70].
Amongst the specific measures to enhance effectiveness
of management were reported provisions concerning specialised or
centralised procurement authorities[71].
Fewer Member States introduced or enhanced corruption statistics[72], e- procurement[73] and integrity pacts[74].
The set of measures aimed at effectiveness
of control and audit[75] 
in particular focused on enhanced smart IT tools and databases together with
enhanced risk assessment[76].
The following tables include answers from the
Member States as regards adopted measures to fight the corruption within public
procurement.
3.           Anti-Fraud Co-ordination Service (AFCOS) 
Implementation of Article 3.4 of the new OLAF Regulation,
which entered into force on 1 October 2013, states that ‘Member States
shall, for the purposes of this regulation, designate a service (‘the
anti-fraud coordination service’) to facilitate effective cooperation and
exchange of information, including information of an operational nature, with
the Office. Where appropriate, in accordance with national law, the anti-fraud
coordination service may be regarded as a competent authority for the purposes
of this regulation’.
The AFCOS part of the Questionnaire aimed to
collect information regarding the establishment and current organisation of
AFCOS, their tasks and competences, including coordinating and investigative
powers.
3.1.        Appointment
of AFCOS
Member States were asked if there is an AFCOS
authority set up in their Member State. OLAF provided Member States with a
guidance note on main tasks and responsibilities of an Anti-Fraud Coordination
Service (AFCOS).
Twenty-three Member States have already established
their Anti-Fraud Coordination Service (AFCOS) and Germany which re-confirmed
working cooperation arrangement with OLAF. These include all the post-2004 Member States[77], plus Belgium, Denmark, Greece, France, Italy[78],
 Netherlands, Austria, Portugal, Finland and United Kingdom[79] and Germany. 
Germany reported that
the Federal Ministry of Finance (BMF, Department EA6) currently continues to
coordinate matters relating to OLAF at national level. Even before the new OLAF
regulation entered into force, OLAF and the German government had concluded a
working cooperation arrangement which has been re-confirmed[80].
The remaining four Member States have not
formally established their AFCOS yet, however the procedures are ongoing in Ireland, Spain Luxembourg and Sweden, with expected framework to become operational before the end
of 2014, or within 2 years’ time (Spain). 
Tab.7: Status quo concerning AFCOS authority
appointment in the Member States 
Germany did not answer concerning
the set-up of AFCOS in the questionnaire and clarified on the situation
separately - the AFCOS continues to be coordinated by
department EA6. Greece communicated establishment of AFCOS on 13 June 2014.
Tab. 8:  Name and date of
establishment of the Anti-Fraud Co-ordination
Service
Greece communicated
establishment of AFCOS to OLAF on 13 June 2014.
3.2.        Legal
basis of Anti-Fraud Co-ordination Service
Member States were asked to specify the current
legal basis empowering the central authority to take action/provide assistance
to OLAF. (Type of legal basis: Legal act, internal rules or internal
procedures)
The majority of Member States reported a legal
act as a legal basis for establishment of the AFCOS.

Table 9 details the replies of those Member
States which indicated a legal act as a reply to this question.
Tab.9 : Legal act
empowering the AFCOS to act as a contact point for OLAF
Internal
procedures are a legal base for AFCOS in Belgium, France and Austria, as detailed in Table 10. In Greece the legal base of AFCOS is under
finalisation. In Denmark the legal base of establishment of AFCOS is a
government decision. 
Tab.10: Internal
procedures empowering the AFCOS to act as a contact point for OLAF
Table 11 shows the information concerning the Polish
AFCOS, which is based on internal rules.
Tab.11: Internal rules empowering the AFCOS to act as a contact point for
OLAF
3.3.        Organisation
of AFCOS
The Member States were asked[81] if the AFCOS competences
are handled by a single organisation or whether the coordinating structure is
relying on a network of organisations to accomplish its tasks.
Thirteen Member States organised their AFCOS as
a Central contact point[82],
while the remaining seven Member States organised their AFCOS as a structure[83], consisting of the
AFCOS service where AFCOS competences are handled by a network of organisations
involving AFCOS service and other authorities relevant for cooperation with
OLAF.
Tab.12: Member States indicated the
organisation of their AFCOS set-up.
3.3.1.     Organisation
of AFCOS – STRUCTURE
The Member States, which indicated that AFCOS
competences are endowed within a structure, were asked if the setting is
formally established (meeting on a regular basis) or is it based on ad hoc meetings.
Of the seven Member States which defined that
AFCOS competencies are handled by a "structure", in five of them the 
meetings are in an established form (in Belgium, Croatia, Latvia, Slovenia and
Slovakia), while in two (in France and Cyprus) it functions on the basis of ad
hoc meetings as shown in table 13.
Tab.13: AFCOS structure – form of
establishment (ad hoc or formally established)
The seven Member States, who established their
AFCOS as a structure, were also asked to indicate the organisations belonging
to it. Table 14 shows for each of them the bodies (organisations) participating
in the structure. The Slovak Republic reported all bodies from the choice in
the below scheme and indicated that their AFCOS comprises also of the Office
for Public Procurement, The Supreme Audit Office of the Slovak Republic, the
Slovak Information Service and the Bratislava Self-Governing Region. Belgium reported that their AFCOS may be extended depending on the issue to be dealt with.
Tab.14: Organisations belonging to the AFCOS
structure – seven Member States indicated which organisations belong to the
network.
Table 15 specifies the bodies referred to under
the ‘other’ category.
Tab.
15: Organisations belonging to the AFCOS structure – other category
Belgium, Croatia, Latvia and Slovakia further commented on organisations involved in the AFCOS structure as
specified in table 16.
Tab. 16: Organisations belonging to the
AFCOS structure – other (comment) 
3.3.2.     Organisation
of AFCOS – CENTRAL CONTACT POINT
Member States were asked to describe what type
of body is the national AFCOS and the functions it accomplishes.
Thirteen Member States organised their AFCOS
service as a Central contact point, for the most part within a ministry
(Austria, Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Estonia, Finland, Hungary, Italy, Malta, Poland and Portugal). 
Three Member States reported that their AFCOS
is based in an investigative body (Netherlands, Portugal and Romania). Only Lithuania based its AFCOS service within a law enforcement body,
as shown in the scheme 17. None of the Member States based its AFCOS within a judicial
body.
Tab. 17: Central contact point – type of
body
In the Netherlands, Portugal and Romania the AFCOS service has been situated into an investigative body. In the Netherlands the AFCOS has administrative powers, as it is in charge of reporting
irregularities and coordination of information. In Romania the AFCOS has broad
coordinative and investigative powers (Romania selected all sub-options of the
questionnaire) and conducts joint investigations with OLAF, based on the New
Criminal Procedure Code[84].
3.4.        Functions
accomplishes by AFCOS
The table 18 summarises the situation in all
the Member States. The answers concerning Member States who established their
AFCOS as a “structure” have been derived from the answers provided in the part
2.6 (Human resources per activity). The reason why the Czech Republic indicated
personnel in charge of investigation and did not specify this function is that
the AFCOS Central contact point (base) is not in charge, however investigations
are carried out by the Local contact point (The Supreme Public Prosecutor's
Office).
Tab. 18: Main functions of AFCOS (all types)
Five Member States, which established their
AFCOS as a Central contact point, specified other functions or clarified the
choice, as shown in table 19.
Tab. 19: Main functions of AFCOS (Central
contact point) - Other 
3.4.1.     Training
and antifraud prevention
Fifteen Member States reported that their AFCOS
provides training and antifraud prevention, as shown in table 18. 
Eight Member States having established their
AFCOS as a Central contact point, included “training and antifraud prevention”
amongst AFCOS functions and were requested to indicate further details (AFCOS
acting as a participant, organiser or both).
In Bulgaria, Estonia, Hungary, Italy, Lithuania and Romania AFCOS acts as an organiser and participant in trainings and
antifraud prevention. In the Czech Republic, AFCOS acts as an organiser; in Malta, as a participant only, as shown in Table 20.
Tab. 20: Training and antifraud prevention –
AFCOS acts as an organiser or participant or both
3.5.        AFCOS
internal organisation
Most AFCOS, established as a Central contact
point, are based as a sector or directorate within ministry directly referring
to the minister (Bulgaria, Estonia, Finland, Italy, Malta and Portugal). Two AFCOS are established as a self-standing authority (Lithuania and Romania). Netherlands established its AFCOS as a service within a Directorate directly
referring to the Head of Directorate. The remaining four countries, Austria, Czech Republic, Hungary and Poland, have “other” internal organisation as shown in the
scheme 21.
Tab. 21: AFCOS internal organisation (Central contact point)
Table 22 shows ‘other’ replies, clarifying on
the internal organisation by the Member States concerned.
Tab. 22: AFCOS internal organisation
(Central contact point) – Other
3.6.        Human
resources 
All Member States, having already established
AFCOS, were requested to provide details about the overall level of human
resources and then detail it per activity as per the typology indicated in the
table 23.
Seven Member States indicated an overall level
of human resources above 25 people, while eight have allocated less than six as
shown in the table.
Tab. 23: Human resources overall – All
Member States (all types of AFCOS)
Table 24 provides further details on the
allocation of HR in broad terms, ensuring various functions attributed to the
AFCOS. It is important to underline, however, that AFCOS members of staff deal
with more than one function.
Tab. 24: Human resources per activity – All
Member States (all types of AFCOS) 
Several categories should be highlighted.
Training is employing most personnel in Italy, Lithuania and Slovakia.  Irregularities’ reporting involves highest number of resources in the Czech Republic,  Cyprus and Italy[85],
while legal issues are employing most officials in Italy and Romania.
Investigation involves most personnel in Cyprus, Lithuania, Portugal and Romania, which is also corresponding to a stronger investigative
competence of AFCOS in these countries. 
Training is extensively dealt with AFCOS in Italy, Lithuania and  Slovakia, coordination of information in Austria and Romania, public relations in Italy.
3.7.        Tasks
and powers
Member States having established the AFCOS had
to indicate if it has a coordinating or investigative role or it covers both.
All the Member States indicated that the
mandate of AFCOS enables for coordinating role. Eight Member States indicated
that their AFCOS is entrusted with certain investigative powers: In Belgium, Bulgaria, Cyprus, Lithuania, Malta, Portugal, Romania and Slovakia, as specified in Table 25.
Tab. 25: Role of AFCOS (all types of AFCOS)
3.7.1.     Coordination competences
The following question requested the Member
States to specify the coordination competences of AFCOS according to predefined
categories as shown in Table 26.
Tab. 26: Coordination field (all Member States, all types of AFCOS)
Vast coordination competences[86] were reported
by Bulgaria, Estonia, Croatia, Italy, Cyprus, Hungary, Malta, Romania, Slovenia and Slovakia. 
Lithuania, Portugal and the Czech Republic indicated broad coordination competences of AFCOS.
Table 27 specifies further coordination
competences reported by four Member States.
Tab. 27: Coordination field (all Member States, all types of AFCOS) – other 
Limited coordinating competences reported France (in the field of “national antifraud coordination”), Austria (AFCOS is informed about
coordination and exchange of information in connection with on‑the‑spot
controls by OLAF) and Finland (possibility to develop antifraud proposals to
enforce antifraud arrangements). 
Note that the competences in the field of national
antifraud strategy have not been explored in the questionnaire.
3.7.1.1.  Irregularity
management framework
The eleven Member States, which indicated
Irregularity management framework within the coordination function, were
requested to select the option(s) that best describe the role of AFCOS in
relation to it, according to the suggested answers as shown in Table 28.
Tab. 28: Coordination - Irregularity
management framework 
The seven Member States having selected the
involvement in the preparation of regulating instruments were requested to
provide further specification as shown in Tables 29 and 30.
Tab. 29: AFCOS is involved in preparation of
regulative instruments regarding irregularity management
Tab. 30: AFCOS is involved in preparation of
regulative instruments regarding irregularity management-Other
3.7.1.2.  Exchange
of information
The fifteen Member States, which indicated that
AFCOS participates  in exchanges of information were required to further 
specify on it as shown in Tables 31and 32.
Tab. 31: Coordination field – AFCOS is
informed about
Tab. 32:
Coordination field – AFCOS is informed about- Other
When the information concerns irregularity
investigations, further clarification was requested, as shown in Table 33.
Tab. 33: Information
about irregularity investigations – specification
3.7.2.     Investigative
competences
The following set of questions aims at
obtaining the knowledge about those AFCOS for which investigative competences
have been indicated, as shown in Table 34.
Cyprus, Romania[87], Portugal and Malta
reported broader investigative competences (a selection of  all answers  choice
in the questionnaire: Contact point – link for OLAF to national investigative
authorities, exchange of investigative information with OLAF, investigative
powers according to national procedures, investigation of irregularities,
participation in audit and control, on irregularity investigative procedure and
penal cases). Seven Member States out of eight with
broader investigative competences responded competence in investigative
activities according to national procedures, six of them proceed with
interviewing persons concerned and witnesses with their consent have access
to documents and premises and to the information about ongoing criminal
or administrative investigations.
The Member States were asked to specify the
competences of AFCOS in investigative fields. The results are summarised in
Table 34.
Tab. 34: Competences
of AFCOS in investigative fields (all Member States, all types of AFCOS)
Tab. 35: Competences
of AFCOS in investigative fields (all Member States, all types of AFCOS) -
Other
The option “contact point” in table 36 refers
to the competence of AFCOS to act as OLAF’s contact point in relation to OLAF’s
investigations (for example link for OLAF to national investigative
authorities, link for  exchange of investigative information with OLAF and/or
other Member States).
The eight following Member States specified
certain investigative activities of AFCOS as a contact point: Belgium, Bulgaria, Cyprus, Lithuania, Malta, Portugal, Romania and Slovakia. Germany re-confirmed cooperation agreement with OLAF that has been concluded
in April 2008, based on which BMF[88]
functions as a contact point in relation to OLAF.
Tab.36: Activities
of AFCOS as a contact point 
Netherlands reported
that their AFCOS is based within the Customs Information Centre (Duane
Informatie Centrum, DIC), however its investigative powers are limited to
administrative investigation. As regards investigation at the governmental
departments, the authority to investigate is attributed to them.
In Belgium the Economic directorate (DG
Inspection Economique), to which the CICF belongs, assists OLAF by carrying out
inspections of Belgian economic operators in order to identify serious or
international irregularities and to protect EU financial interests. The CICF’s
role as a contact point is to centralise and dispatch OLAF’s requests for
investigations to the relevant national authorities. AFCOS in Belgium thus rarely conducts operational cooperation, as the function consists solely of
coordination of relevant information and centralisation. Its role is limited to
dispatching information requests to the competent authorities. 
Investigative powers according to national procedures apply AFCOS Belgium, Bulgaria, Cyprus, Lithuania, Malta, Portugal and Romania, as shown in Tables 37 and 38. 
Tab.37:
Investigative powers according to national procedures 
Tab.38:
Investigative powers according to national procedures – Other
The following tables detail the replies
provided by the Member States concerned about AFCOS competencies in the
investigation of irregularities and of criminal investigations 
Tab. 39:
Investigation of irregularities (launching of irregularity proceedings or
irregularity investigations)
Tab. 40:
Participation in irregularity investigations (as an observer or consulting)
Tab. 41:
Investigative powers conferred to AFCOS in the area of criminal investigations
3.8.        Cooperation
with judicial authorities
The last question of the survey requested the
Member States to indicate whether the AFCOS cooperation with judicial
authorities is structured or unstructured.
Formalized cooperation with judicial
authorities has been established in AFCOS of Bulgaria, the Czech Republic,  Estonia, Croatia, Latvia, Malta, Romania and Slovenia. In Austria there is no cooperation agreement between AFCOS and judicial authorities. Cooperation
on a case by case and/or cooperation on request is foreseen in Belgium, France,
Italy, Cyprus, Lithuania, Hungary, Netherlands, Poland, , , Portugal, Slovakia
and Finland (in Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Estonia, Croatia, Latvia, Malta,
Romania and Slovenia the cooperation is both formalized and case by case or on
request) as specified in table 42.
Tab. 42: Cooperation
with judicial authorities (all Member States, all types of AFCOS)
Table 43 collects the comments provided by the
Member States in relation to cooperation with judicial authorities
Tab. 43: Cooperation
with judicial authorities – Comment (all Member States, all types of AFCOS)
[1]               Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 883/2013 of the European
Parliament and of the Council of 11 September 2013 concerning investigations
conducted by the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) and repealing Regulation
(EC) No 1073/1999 of the European Parliament and of the Council and Council
Regulation (Euratom) No 1074/1999. Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 883/2013 of
the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 September 2013 concerning
investigations conducted by the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) and repealing
Regulation (EC) No 1073/1999 of the European Parliament and of the Council and
Council Regulation (Euratom) No 1074/1999.
[2]               Legislative measures accompanied by administrative,
organisational or operational measures.
[3]           This category
also concerned legislative, administrative, organisational and operational
measures.
[4]               Spain (legislation on the control of public
expenditure, e-government)
[5]               Portugal (legislation introducing compulsory publication
of  advantages granted to individuals by public authorities, reporting
subsidies and any EU support to the IGF, which publishes the information on its
internet site)
[6]               France (customs and tax fraud)
[7]               Slovenia (administrative measure, agreement between Police
and  Budget Supervision Office and Court of Audit)
[8]               Sweden (administrative measure to combat financial
crime)
[9]               Belgium (a set of administrative measures applied in
the procurement procedure)
[10]             Italy (checks to avoid double financing)
[11]             Netherlands (administrative  measure applied by the
Agency for Social Affairs and Employment)
[12]             France (administrative and operational measure
concerning ERDF, ESF, EFF, in the context of public procurement)
[13]             Netherlands (the Agency for Social Affairs and
Employment)
[14]             Cyprus (administrative measure)
[15]             Hungary (the Agriculture and Rural Development Agency
uses the Opten company information service assessing the client/company
financial background and personal links)
[16]             Bulgaria (changes introduced to the functionalities of
the irregularities and on-the-spot checks module in the information system as
regards reporting irregularities, at request of the AFCOS directorate)
[17]             Portugal (database of projects supported by the
Structural Funds, which is supplemented by publicly available information with
a view to identifying the ‘most at risk’ projects by the use of risk indicators)
[18]             Spain  (in charge of financial crime to include the
fight against corruption, which cannot be deemed to be an anti-corruption
measure)
[19]             Lithuania (the group includes representatives of the
Lithuanian bodies responsible for the administration of EU financial assistance)
[20]          The
ERDF managing authorities of the federal states have set up management and
control systems ensuring that EU structural funds are used in a legal
manner. xc
[21]             The list is neither exhaustive nor applicable to all
federal states.
[22]                    The risk scoring tool ARACHNE aims at providing the MS
authorities involved in management of the Structural Funds with an operational
tool to identify their most risky projects.
[23]             In the field “scope of legislation” the Member States
had a multiple choice to clarify competence, powers, definition of breach,
recovery, financial penalties, other administrative penalties, criminal
sanctions, time barring and other. 
[24]             The other field was selected if a different context
non-fitting to the questionnaire has been intended  (procedure concerning
external contractors, for example financial crime, corruption in general, tax
fraud,  specific AFCOS network and tasks or access to public information). 
[25]             Lithuania introduced amendments to the Criminal Law in
connection with the application of coercive measures to legal entities for
criminal offences, including bribery. The Procurement Monitoring Bureau (IUB)
has become competent authority that detects administrative violations in the
fields of public procurement and public-private partnerships, and also enforces
administrative liability. Romania implemented a New Criminal Procedure Code to
tackle corruption. Other Member States did not specify. Denmark increased maximum penalty for bribery in the Danish Criminal Code.
[26]             Greece enhanced data feeding with cases of suspected
fraud based on the checks and a new legislation on transparency, access to
public information and good governance.
[27]             Denmark (in the context of a set of provisions
concerning corruption, financial crime and organised crime) and Spain (in the context of a new legislation on conflict of interest)
[28]             Single legislative measures concerning public
procurement adopted by Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Lithuania, Malta, Spain,
Romania and Sweden. Package of measures (legislative, administrative,
organisational or operational measures) adopted by Estonia and Greece.
[29]             In
total there were adopted 23 legislative measures with horizontal effect and 13
with sectoral effect (6 expenditure and 7 revenue).
[30]             E-
procurement and good governance (Spain, Portugal); mechanisms for prevention of
conflict of interest (Romania); cancellation of procurement procedure if only
one tenderer applies (the Czech Republic); provisions concerning external
contractors (Bulgaria), monitoring and follow-up of activities provided
conducted by private-sector providers (Sweden); coercive measures regarding
administrative liability for violations in the field of public procurement and
public- private partnerships (Latvia).
[31]             Germany, Greece, Italy, Cyprus, Latvia, Hungary, Malta, Romania, Slovenia and United Kingdom (Latvia, Romania, Slovenia introduced also sanctions; Malta and Latvia enhanced protection of whistleblowers).
[32]             Cyprus, Hungary, Slovenia and United Kingdom
[33]             Denmark (legislation - the maximum penalty has been
increased as regards bribery in the Danish Criminal Code)
[34]             Czech Republic (ratification of the PIF
Convention) and Greece (National Anti-Corruption Coordinator)
[35]             Croatia (decision defines the bodies
comprising the AFCOS network and their tasks), Netherlands  (powers)
[36]             Denmark (specific provisions concerning investigation of
cases of tax fraud) and Poland (list of goods covered by the reverse charge
mechanism,  exclusion of  possibility of quarterly clearance in certain cases) 
[37]             Lithuania (provision stating that EU financial
assistance may not be granted to the applicant or project promoter for five
consecutive years following a definitive court judgment)
[38]             Most of them were single
administrative measures (19), however several Member States adopted
administrative measures within a package of mesures (a
whole set of legislative, administrative, operational and organisational
measures (5), administrative and organisational measures (2), administrative
and operational measures (2) or as measures
accompanying legislation (2).
[39]             These aimed mostly at the expenditure part of the
budget (8 measures with a horizontal effect):  Cohesion policy (16), followed
by Agriculture (8), Fisheries (6) and Migration and Asylum (3). Some of the
also aimed at the revenue: customs and fraud (2).
[40]             Belgium, Denmark, Germany (public procurement and corruption), Estonia, Ireland, Greece, France, Latvia,  Luxembourg,  Netherlands, Romania, Finland and United Kingdom.
[41]             Belgium, Ireland, Greece, France, Croatia, Latvia and United Kingdom.
[42]             Cyprus and  Finland (only recovery)
[43]             Slovenia and  Slovakia
[44]             Greece and Finland
[45]             Belgium,
Slovakia
[46]             Latvia
[47]             Croatia and
France 
[48]             Slovakia
[49]             Sweden
[50]             Romania
[51]             Slovakia
[52]             Sweden (electronic system of
checks in the customs procedure)
[53]             Slovenia (in order to ensure more efficient
supervision, by the competent authorities, institutions and the media, of the
use of the public money)
[54]             Financial crime (1), organised crime (1), corruption
(1), conflict of interest (1) and AFCOS (2)
[55]             Organisational measures together with administrative,
legislative and operational measures (5) or legislative, organisational and
operational 2) or administrative, organisational and operational (2) or
legislative/administrative and organisational (2)
[56]             Compare organisational measures with horizontal effect
(11) and sectoral effect (3revenue and 4 expenditure).
[57]             Greece, Spain, France, Luxembourg, Hungary, Poland, Romania, , Portugal, and (reorganisation of existing bodies and competences); Greece, Austria and Poland  (inter-agency cooperation).
[58]             Italy, Latvia and United Kingdom (general training and
fraud awareness training), Greece, Italy and United Kingdom (fraud awareness training)
and Estonia (general training)
[59]             Financial crime (4), organised crime (1), AFCOS (3).
[60]             In total 15 operational measures with sectoral effect
(11expenditure and 4 revenue) and 7 with horizontal effect.
[61]             Bulgaria, Estonia, Greece, Cyprus, Hungary (targeted inspection: in cases of suspicion, targeted inspection using the Opten
contacts network module, which can identify individual client links), Romania and Slovenia.
[62]             Risk indicators (Greece, Poland) increased number of
checks (Bulgaria, Hungary, United Kingdom), both risk indicators and increased
number of checks (Germany, Ireland, Greece and Slovenia).
[63]             France, Lithuania, Malta and Romania.
[64]             Within a package of  legislative, administrative,
organisational and operational measures.
[65]             Malta introduced measures to protect whistleblowers
with the effect on both private and public sector; Romania and Greece adopted a set of measures tackling corruption (with target on the public
procurement) with the effect on private and public sector.
[66]             Recommendation 5, 6 and 8, lesser to the recommendation
2 of the PIF report 2012.
[67]             Cyprus, Hungary, Italy, Romania and United Kingdom
[68]             Germany, Hungary, Latvia, Romania and Slovenia
[69]             Germany
[70]             Disclosure of fraudsters (naming and shaming)
introduced Germany, Cyprus, Latvia, Romania; disclosure of documents and
information introduced Italy and Romania; disclosure of beneficial owners
introduced Cyprus, Italy and Slovenia.
[71]             Germany, Greece, Italy, Cyprus and Romania
[72]             Greece, Italy, Romania and Slovenia
[73]             Malta, Romania and  United Kingdom
[74]             Italy and Slovenia
[75]             Germany, Greece, Cyprus, Latvia, Malta and Slovenia
[76]             Greece, Italy, Cyprus, Latvia, Hungary, Romania and   Slovenia
[77]             At the time of EU enlargement in 2004 and 2007 there
was no relevant EU legal base for the designation of AFCOS. However the
designation of AFCOS was included as a priority in the 2001 Accession
Partnership and the Accession Countries committed themselves to this objective
in their National programmes for the adoption of Acquis Communautaire, as well
as in the so-called “Negotiation positions” under the relevant chapter on
Financial control. Since 2013 the AFCOS concept is anchored in the Regulation
(EU, EURATOM) No 883/2013 Article 3(4), the provision on the designation of AFCOS
serves also as a benchmark for the Candidate Countries in their accession to
the EU.
[78]             Italy established Committee to combat fraud in the
Community (Comitato per la lotta contro le frodi comunitarie) in 199, Art.
76 of the Law 19/02/1992 n. 142; based on the Regulation for the reorganisation
of the bodies within the Department for the Coordination of Community Policies
pursuant to Article 29 of Decree Law No 223 of
4 July 2006, converted into statute with amendments by Law
No 248 of 4 August 2006, established COLAF, Committee to
combat fraud in the European Union (Comitato per la lotta contro le frodi
nei confronti dell'Unione europea).
[79]             Finland reported an interim solution. Denmark, Greece, Austria, Portugal and the United Kingdom reported procedures ongoing for 2013 and
appointed their AFCOS service in 2014. 
[80]             Letter to OLAF on 13 January 2014.
[81]            Denmark,
Greece and the United Kingdom  are not included in the answers as they
appointed their AFCOS service  during  2014. 
[82]             Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Estonia, Italy, Lithuania,
Hungary, Malta, Netherlands, Austria, Poland, Portugal, Romania and  Finland.
[83]             Belgium, France, Croatia, Cyprus, Latvia, Slovenia and
Slovakia
[84]          The Romanian
AFCOS is an “ascertaining body” based within the New Criminal Procedure Code
(Law No.61/2011).
[85]             In the Czech Republic and Italy the higher number of
personnel corresponds with high number of irregularities reported.
[86]             Most or all of the choice from
the questionnaire: Irregularity management framework, AFCOS is informed,
National antifraud coordination, Possibility to develop antifraud proposals to
enforce antifraud arrangements, Training and antifraud prevention, Guide on
methodology and  Accessibility of data in the administrative field.
[87]             Romania clarified position of AFCOS as an investigative
body, according to the updated New Criminal code procedure.
[88]     Bundesministerium
der Finanzen, BMF (Federal Ministry of Finance in Germany)