COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT Implemention of Article 325 TFEU by the Member States in 2014 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 2014
Date: 2015-07-31
Institutions: European Anti-Fraud Office, European Commission
Subjects: EU Member State, budgetary expenditure, conflict of interest, corruption, economic survey, fight against crime, financial control, fraud, fraud against the EU

EN 

   EN 

   EUROPEAN COMMISSION  Brussels, 31.7.2015  SWD(2015) 154 final   COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT Implemention of Article 325 TFEU by the Member States in 2014 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 2014 {COM(2015) 386 final} {SWD(2015) 151 final} {SWD(2015) 152 final} {SWD(2015) 153 final} {SWD(2015) 155 final} {SWD(2015) 156 final}  
 
 
TABLE OF CONTENTS 

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS ..................................................................................................... 4 

1. 

Implementation of article 325 TFEU by Member States .................................................... 5 

2.  Most important Anti-Fraud measures adopted by member states in 2014 under the article 
325 TFEU ................................................................................................................................... 6 

2.1.  Results of the measures reported in the Questionnaire ..................................................... 6 

2.2.  Measures reported by area ................................................................................................ 9 

2.2.1.  The ‘Other’ category ..................................................................................................... 9 

2.2.2.  Public Procurement ...................................................................................................... 10 

2.2.3.  Conflict of Interest and Corruption ............................................................................. 11 

2.2.4.  Measures on the Protection of Whistleblowers ........................................................... 16 

2.2.5.  Measures to prevent financial crime, organised crime and tax fraud .......................... 18 

2.2.6.  Measures Reported Concerning Anti-Fraud Coordination Service (AFCOS) ............ 19 

2.3.  Structured answers of 28 Member States – measures taken concerning the 
EXPENDITURE areas of the EU budget ................................................................................. 21 

2.4.  Structured answers of 28 Member States – measures taken in the REVENUE part of the 
EU budget ................................................................................................................................. 50 

3.  Specific  part  of  the  questionnaire  2014:  definitions  used  in  irregularity  reporting  by  the 
Member States .......................................................................................................................... 56 

3.1.  Summary of the replies ................................................................................................... 56 

3.2.  Legal obligation for public officials to refer to law enforcement or a judicial authority 
on any crime he/she becomes aware of in the execution of his/her tasks. ............................... 57 

3.3.  Guidelines regarding the application of definitions in irregularity reporting ................. 62 

3.3.1. 
Internal guidelines on the interpretation of definitions in irregularity reporting 
developed by the Member States ............................................................................................. 63 

3.4.  Definition of Primary administrative or judicial finding (PACA) ................................. 74 

3.4.1.  TYPE A: Uniform application of Primary administrative or judicial finding (PACA) 
in all sectors and types of irregularity ...................................................................................... 74 

3.4.2.  TYPE B: Uniform application of Primary administrative or judicial finding (PACA) 
for all types of irregularity but different application per sector ............................................... 75 

3.4.3.  TYPE C: Different application between types of irregularities but uniform application 
per sector .................................................................................................................................. 79 

3.4.4.  TYPE D: Different application per sector and per type of irregularity ....................... 79 

2 

 
 
 
 
3.5.  Reporting of suspected or established fraud (irregularities reported as fraudulent) ....... 82 

3.6.  Reference in national legislation to fraud against the EU budget .................................. 83 

Internal system of signalling of suspected irregularity, developed outside Irregularity 

3.7. 
Management System (IMS), in use .......................................................................................... 84 

3.8.  Follow-up concerning cases reported to the European Commission in the Irregularity 
Management System (IMS) under criminal proceedings ......................................................... 90 

3.9.  Reporting of irregularities where the beneficiary is a public authority/body ................. 94 

3 

 
 
 
 
 
 
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS 

AFCOS 

CAP 

CF 

CP 

CoI 

DG 

EAFRD 

EAGF 

EC 

EFF 

EU 

EUR 

ERDF 

ESF 

MS 

OLAF 

SME 

TFEU 

Anti-Fraud Coordination Service 

Common Agricultural Policy 

Cohesion Fund 

Cohesion Policy 

Conflict of interest 

Directorate General 

European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development 

European Agricultural Guarantee Fund 

European Commission 

European Fishery Fund 

European Union 

Euro 

European Regional Development Fund 

European Social Fund 

Member State 

European Anti-Fraud Office  

Small and Medium Sized Enterprise 

Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union 

4 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
1.  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 the Advisory Committee for the Cordination of Fraud Prevention 
(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. 

This questionnaire covers the period from 1 January to 31 December 2014. Traditionally, 
information  for  this  section  of  the  Report  is  collected  by  the  Commission  through  a 
questionnaire  composed  of  a  general  part,  where  Member  States  list  the  three  the  most 
important measures (legislative, administrative, organisational or operational) taken, and 
of  a  part  dealing  with  a  specific  subject  agreed  with  Member  States'  COCOLAF 
representatives each year. 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 2013, the Commission has therefore applied a new 
approach.    In  2014,  for  the  first  time  the  questionnaire    (for  the  PIF  Report  2013)  was 
structured  around  questions  offering  multiple  ‘closed’  answers  (with,  when  required, 
some  sub-questions  providing  further  limited  choices)  and  limiting  the  possibility  to 
submit  free  text  (fixed  at  300  characters  maximum).    As  a  result  of  Member  States’ 
requirements,  the  number  of  available  characters  for  the  2014  questionnaire  has  been 
increased to 600 maximum. In addition, the Member States were given the possibility to 
report  up  to  5  most  important  measures  and  additional  measures,  concerning  mainly 
federal  countries  and  countries  with  devolved  administration  in  the  field  of  anti-fraud 
strategy. 

The questionnaire was successfully managed through the 'EU survey' platform, offering 
the  possibility  to  extract  data  once  the  allowed  time  is  up.  This  tool  has  proven  to 
function  well  for  replies  and  data  collection  since  2013  Report.  The  information,  made 
available  in  a  structured  manner,  allowed  for  a  more  comparative  approach  and  better 
presentation of the replies provided by the Member States. Based on this experience, the 
same technical solutions were also used for the collection of the contributions of Member 
States for the 2014 Report. 

As in 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 in the 

5 

 
 
 
 
same way as the 2013 questionnaire. Member States are invited to describe two or three 
‘key’  measures  taken  in  2014,  in  order  to  implement  Article  325  of  the  Treaty.  The 
second  set  of  questions  concerns  the  application  of  definitions  used  in  irregularity 
reporting by the Member States. 

2.  MOST  IMPORTANT  ANTI-FRAUD  MEASURES  ADOPTED  BY  MEMBER  STATES  IN  2014 
UNDER THE ARTICLE 325 TFEU 

2.1. 

Results of the measures reported in the Questionnaire  

Member States reported ninety-six measures adopted in 2014 in total, referring to various 
areas  concerning  the  protection  of  the  EU's  financial  interests  and  the  fight  against  the 
fraud.  Fifteen  Member  States1  used  the  opportunity  to  report  more  than  three  'most 
important'  measures  adopted  to  protect  the  financial  interests  of  the  EU,  while  five 
Member States2 reported only one measure.   

Most  measures  adopted  by  the  Member  States  targeted  fraud  prevention  and  detection. 
The  Member  States  reported  an  increased  number  of  adopted  anti-fraud  provisions 
compared to 2013, which is explained by the adoption of the bulk of Union legislation for 
the new programming period 2014-2020. 

The majority of the measures adopted concerned the fraud prevention phase of the anti-
fraud cycle for both  programming  periods  2007-2013 and 2014-2020. Fraud  prevention 
activities  involved:  a  legislative  definition  of  a  specific  topic  adopted  by  ten  Member 
States3,  seven  Member  States4  reported  conducting  fraud  awareness  training  or  internal 
training measures, fourteen Member States5 adopted new measures or revised procedures 
concerning  the  management  of  funds,  control  and  audit,  and  seven  Member  States6 
adopted measures on the reporting of irregularities.  

Five  Member  States7  reported  that  they  have  adopted  a  National  Anti-fraud  Strategy 
(NAFS) for the programming period 2014-2020. Nine Member States8 reported national 
anti-fraud measures with regard to the cohesion policy funds9, while six Member States10 
adopted national anti-fraud measures pursuant to agriculture funds11.  

1  

2  

3  
4  
5  

6  
7  

8  
9  
10  
11  

Belgium,  Bulgaria,  Greece,  Spain,  France,  Italy,  Latvia,  Lithuania,  Hungary,  Netherlands,  Poland,  Portugal, 
Romania, Slovakia and Sweden 
Five  measures  were  reported  by  Belgium,  Bulgaria,  Greece,  Spain,  Italy,  Latvia,  Lithuania,  Hungary,  Poland, 
Portugal, Romania and Slovakia, four measures were reported by France, Netherlands and Sweden. Only 1 measure 
was reported the Czech Republic, Denmark, Cyprus, Luxembourg and Finland. 
Belgium, Bulgaria, Estonia, Spain, Latvia, Lithuania, Austria, Poland, Romania and Slovakia 
Denmark, Germany, Ireland, France, Hungary, Portugal and Sweden 
Germany,  Ireland,  Greece,  Italy,  Latvia,  Lithuania,  Hungary,  Netherlands,  Austria,  Poland,  Slovenia,  Slovakia, 
Finland and Sweden 
Bulgaria, France, Croatia, Austria, Portugal, Slovakia and Sweden 
Bulgaria,  Greece,  Croatia,  Malta  and  Slovakia  (NAFS  concerning  structural  actions:  Greece,  Croatia  and  Malta, 
while NAFS concerning all sectors: Bulgaria and Slovakia) 
France, Croatia, Lithuania, Hungary, Netherlands, Portugal, Romania, Finland, and the United Kingdom 
Article 125, 4. (c) of Regulation (EU) No 1303/2013, OJ 347, 20.12.2013, p. 320. 
Germany, Ireland, Hungary, Portugal, Slovakia and the United Kingdom 
Article 58, of Regulation (EU) No 1306/2013, OJ 347, 20.12.2013, p. 549. 

6 

 
 
 
 
                                                            
A  national  fraud  prevention  strategy  for  public  procurement  for  the  new  programming 
period 2014-2020 was adopted in Bulgaria. A national anti-corruption programme for the 
current  programming  period  was  adopted  in  Lithuania,  and  a  regional  programme  was 
adopted  in  Italy.  Thirteen  Member  States12  reported  fraud  detection  and  six  Member 
States13  reported  investigation  measures.  Nine  Member  States14  adopted  criminal 
sanctions and penalties concerning fraud prosecution.  

12  

13  
14  

Bulgaria,  Czech  Republic,  Greece,  Ireland,  Italy,  Latvia,  Luxembourg,    Netherlands,  Austria,  Poland,  Romania, 
Slovenia and the United Kingdom. 
Estonia, France, Italy, Hungary, Netherlands and Poland. 
Belgium, Estonia, Greece, Spain, France, Hungary, Malta, Portugal, Romania. 

7 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                            
Table 1:  Measures reported by Member States 

The table shows the number of measures reported by the Member States (ninety-six) and references to the related areas: the area of public procurement (PP), 
financial crime, conflict of interest (CoI), corruption, Anti-Fraud Coordination Service (AFCOS), a definition of fraud, whistle-blowers, organised crime and 
‘other’ (one hundred eighty-two references in total). Reference to the 'area' is not the same as a measure adopted. The reason for this is that many measures 
were a ‘packages of provisions’ referring to more than one area. 

8 

AREAMSIIIIIIIVVIIIIIIIVVIIIIIIIVVIIIIIIIVVIIIIIIIVVIIIIIIIVVIIIIIIIVVIIIIIIIVVIIIIIIIVVBE5111BG511CZ1DK1DE21EE3111IE31111EL5111ES51FR41HR211IT511111CY1LV51111LT5111LU11HU51MT21NL41AT21PL51PT5111111RO51111111SI311111SK511FI11SE41UK21196711143774713012045353951453513244601231221169105182Reference to areas1041No of measuresAFCOSWhistleblowersOther2626620241415PP Fin. crimeOrg. crimeCorruptionCOIFraud definition 
 
 
 
 
 
2.2.  Measures reported by area 

In  areas  pre-selected in the questionnaire15, the largest number  of measures reported by 
the  Member  States  were  in  relation  to  public  procurement  and  financial  crime  (twenty-
six), followed by conflict of interest (twenty-four), corruption (twenty), AFCOS (fifteen), 
fraud definition (fourteen), whistle-blowers (ten) and organised crime (six)16.  

The  ‘other’  field  was  selected  by  the  Member  States  forty-one  times,  separately  or  in 
combination  with  the  above  mentioned  areas,  in  order  to  clarify  a  measure,  or  to 
introduce another area (for example management and control of funds, state aid, etc.), or 
a  strategy  in  the  programming  period  2007-2013  and  2014-2020  to  counter  fraud 
affecting the financial interests of the Union.  

The amount of replies reported as ‘other’ for the year 2014 increased (from twenty-six to 
forty-one),  which  can  be  explained  by  the  adoption  of  a  bulk  of  provisions  concerning  
the new programming period  2014-2020 and dealing with remaining issues regarding the 
old programing period  2007-2013.  

All of the answers were analysed according to the anti-fraud cycle: prevention, detection, 
prosecution and sanctions.   

2.2.1.  The ‘Other’ category  

The Member States referred, in forty-one cases, to the category 'other' to clarify the area 
(preselected in the questionnaire as public procurement, financial crime, organised crime 
etc.) or in order to introduce a reference to 'another' area.  These measures correspond to 
the following phases of the anti-fraud strategy: 

  Fraud prevention regarding both PP 2007-2013 and PP 2014-202017: 

15  

16  
17  

The questionnaire outlined eight areas of specific PIF sectors to which the measures taken by the Member States 
applied;  the  'other'  field  was  used  to  report  miscellaneous  areas  or  horizontal  strategies.    Federal  countries  and 
countries  with  devolved  administration  in  the  field  of  anti-fraud  strategy  had  the  possibility  to  list  'additional 
measures' in a special field (Belgium and Latvia).  
Reference to 'area' is, therefore, not equal to a single measure adopted. 
Ireland (Anti-Fraud Seminar on EAFRD with participation of EC-red flags;  reorganisation of existing bodies to 
prevent  fraud  affecting  ESF  claims),  Latvia  (clarification  of  the  obligations  of  the  audited  entity,  legislative 
horizontal provision), Lithuania (criteria for identifying applicants or aid recipients who have artificially created 
conditions for obtaining aid under measures under the Lithuanian Rural Development Programme for 2014-2020), 
Netherlands  (new  specific  procedures  for  establishing  the  eligibility  of  the  declared  costs  in  the  ESF  fund), 
Portugal  (seminars  organised  by  the  Audit  Authority  and  the  Agency  for  Development  and  Cohesion  with  the 
participation of EC, to improve the quality of expenditure at the end of the 2007-2013 programming period  and to 
set up efficient systems for the prevention and detection of errors), Poland (1.working group on combating fraud in 
projects  co-financed  by  EU  funds  in  the  Cohesion  policy,  aiming  at  efficient  exchange  of  information  with 
investigative  authorities  and  2.prevention  of  undue  payments  -  stronger  mechanisms  for  verification  of  aid 
applications for small scale projects, provincial governments performing the tasks of MAs under rural development 
program  of  the  PP  2007-2013),  Portugal  (ESIF:  creation  of  a  database  containing  information  on  beneficiaries),  
Slovakia  (1.ESIF:  legislative  consolidation  for  controls  and  auditing  under  a  single  provision,  2.  amended 
administrative provision concerning  financial management of structural funds, monitoring and controls, regarding 
the  Cohesion  fund  and  EMFF  for  PP  the  2014-2020,  3.  A  system  for  the  financial  management  and  control 
regarding    EAFRD  for  the  programming  period  2014–2020),  Sweden  (Seminar  for  authorities  involved  in 
managing and protecting EU funds, exchange of best practice in audit with FI and DK representatives) and United 
Kingdom  (Agriculture/fraud  risk  management  at  UK  PAs:  regular  revision  of  guidance  or  enhancement  of  anti-
fraud measures concerning CAP on the basis of fraud risk assessment, fraud response plan  - updated operational 
and organisational measure). 

9 

 
 
 
 
                                                            
o  Fraud  awareness  training  or  internal  training  measures  (Poland,  Portugal  and 

Sweden) 

o  Fraud detection and investigation (Germany, Estonia, Ireland, Italy, Poland and 

United Kingdom)18 

o  Establishment  of  new  measures  or  revision  of  procedures  in  the  management 
of funds, control and audit (Greece19, Lithuania, Netherlands and Slovakia) 

o  Reporting of irregularities (Croatia)20 

  National  anti-fraud  measures  pursuant  to  Regulation  (EU)  No  1303/2013  (France, 
Croatia, Lithuania, Hungary, Netherlands, Portugal, Romania, Finland and the United 
Kingdom)21  and  Regulation  (EU)  No  1306/2013  (Germany,  Ireland,  Portugal, 
Slovakia and the United Kingdom) 22  

  National  Anti-Fraud  Strategy  (NAFS)  concerning  the  PP  2014-2020  for  structural 

actions (Greece, Croatia, Malta23) or for all sectors (Bulgaria and  Slovakia24) 

2.2.2.  Public Procurement 

reported 

Member  States 
references  concerning  public  procurement 
(legislative, administrative, organisational and operational measures). Similar to previous 
years, these were adopted either as a single measure or in combination with provisions in 

twenty-six 

18   

19  

20  

21  

22  

23  
24  

Germany (EMFF: working group on fraud prevention to produce guidance for paying agencies in the agricultural 
sector  and  fishing  sector,  risk  indicators,  increased    targeted  checks),  Estonia  (organisational  and  operational 
measure: establishment of a centrally-administered Economic Crimes Bureau to  investigate fraud connected with 
aid  funds),  Ireland  (a  set  of  organisational  and  operational  measures,  risk  indicators  and  increased  number  of 
checks to reduce ineligible expenditure in the ESF fund), Italy (extension of powers of Guardia di Finanza also to a 
Special  Unit  for  Public  Spending  and  Combating  EU  Fraud  in  order  to  control  for  the  purposes  of  controlling 
payments from the budgets of the EU) and Poland (working group on combating fraud in projects co-financed by 
EU funds in the Cohesion policy to draw rules for efficient exchange of information- administrative measure). 
Greece (Register of Fiscal Auditors and Auditors of the Fiscal Audit Committee (EDEL) with a view to ensuring 
full  harmonisation  of  fiscal  control  with  the  internationally  accepted  auditing  standards  in  line  with  the  need  to 
continuously  evaluate  and  register  staff  engaged  in  fiscal  control  relating  to  the  audits  -  single  organisational 
measure). 
Croatia  (New  administrative  measure:  Guidelines  on  management  of  irregularities  and  fraud  in  the  context  of 
structural funds programmes for the period 2007-2013). 
Pursuant  to  Article  125  (4)  c  of  the  Regulation  (EU)  No  1303/2013  the  managing  authorities  of  structural  funds  
have  a  clear  duty  to  establish  and  apply  proportional  anti-fraud  measures  on  the  basis  of  risk  analysis  (in  their 
management  and  control  system):  France,    Lithuania  (new legislation),  Malta (Pursuant  to  Article  125(4)(c)  of 
Regulation  (EU)  No  1303/2003,  the  managing  authorities  (MAs)  have  implemented  proportionate  anti-fraud 
measures  in  their  management  and  control  system.  The  MAs  will  aim  to  control  the  risk  of  fraud  (and  combat 
fraud) by means of a proactive, structured and targeted approach), Netherlands (administrative measure), Slovakia 
(administrative measure to enhance transparency), Finland (set of legislative provisions) and the United Kingdom 
(Anti-Fraud  Policy  developed  in  line  with  requirements  for  the  2014-2020  Cohesion  policy  programmes; 
operational (new risk indicators + increased number of checks). 
Ireland (Strategy for implementation and inspection of the 2014-2020 EAFRD co-funded LEADER programme) 
and Slovakia. 
Malta reported their National Anti-Fraud Strategy separately out of the PIF questionnaire. 
Bulgaria (Adoption of the ‘National Strategy for the period 2014-2020’ setting out goals in both the expenditure 
and revenue areas, for preventing and combating irregularities and fraud affecting the financial interests of the EU, 
specific activities will be set out in an Action Plan for 2015-2016 for the Implementation of the National Strategy; 
package  of  legislative,  administrative,  organisational  and  operational  measures),  Greece  (National  antifraud 
strategy, new legislation concerning NSRF 2014-2020), Croatia (National anti-fraud strategy for 2014-2016 and an 
Action plan, single administrative measure),  Hungary (Legislative, organisational and operational measures) and 
Slovakia  (Reported  their  National  Anti-Fraud  Strategy  separately  out  of  the  PIF  questionnaire:  the  National 
Strategy  for  the  Protection  of  EU  Interests  in  the  Slovak  Republic  was  drafted  in  2014,  formally  approved  on  7 
January 2015 by the government).  

10 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                            
other  areas,  such  as  corruption,  organised  crime,  conflict  of  interest,  fraud  definition, 
whistle-blowers and 'other'. 

Sixteen adopted measures concerned the treatment of public procurement along the anti-
fraud strategy cycle: 

  Fraud prevention:  

o  National  strategy  for  development  of  the  public  procurement  sector  for  the 
programming  period  2014-2020  adopted  in  Bulgaria  and  in  preparation  in 
Romania25 

o  Implementation of public procurement legislation in line with EU rules and/or 

administrative updates and/or improvement of  IT tools26 

o  Monitoring, desk checks and audit27 

  Integrity rules and transparency measures ensuring that EU funds are used rationally 

and that procurement is transparent28 

  Sanctions and penalties29 

2.2.3.  Conflict of Interest and Corruption 

2.2.3.1. Conflict of interest 

Fifteen  Member  States30  referred  to  measures  taken  in  order  to  eliminate  conflict  of 
interest  in  the  framework  of  other  measures  or  national  strategies  (corruption, 
transparency measures, auditing procedures). 

25  

26  

27  

28  

29  

30  

Bulgaria (Improvement in the legislative and institutional framework in the field of public procurement, enhancing 
the  degree  of  publicity  and  transparency in  the  awarding  of  such  contracts.  As  part  of the implementation  of  the 
National Strategy adopted in 2014, drafting work is under way on a new Framework Act on Public Procurement 
which is scheduled to enter into force as from 1 January 2016. The draft public procurement act will transpose the 
new  European  Directives  2014/24/EU  and  2014/25/EU  and  the existing  Directives  2009/81/ЕC  and  2007/66/ЕC; 
package of measures) and Romania (Establishment of an Inter-ministerial Group in order to set up a new Public 
Procurement Strategy in line with EU Directives on Public Procurement or other Public Policies in this matter). 
Legislative,  administrative  and    operational  measures:  Germany  (update  of  administrative  procedure  concerning 
the  management  of  funds),  Spain  (2  legislative  measures:  on  the  competence  of  the  Transparency  Council  and  
legislation  on  functional  requirements  of  accounting  register),  Hungary  (updated  administrative  guidance  on 
implementation  of  public  procurement  law),  Romania  (aligning  national  legislation  with  EU  Recommendation 
concerning  corrections  and  new  Public  Procurement  National  Strategy  on  the  management  of  funds),  Sweden 
(simplified administrative procedure to reduce administrative burden on aid recipients, transparent accounting rules 
for  project  owners  to  reduce  the  risk  of  errors  and  fraud);  IT  tools:  Bulgaria  (unified  information  system  for 
managing all operational programmes co-financed through ESIF for the PP 2014-2020), Spain (public access to the 
National Subsidies database under responsibility General State Controller IGAE, penalties for lack of transparency) 
and    Hungary  (the  Public  Procurement  authority  improving  transparency  of  its  portal  to  ensure  open  access  to 
national procurement notices). 
Luxembourg  (enhanced  administrative  measure  on  better  monitoring,  control  and  documentation  of  public 
contracts submitted  by  beneficiaries),  Portugal  (operational  measure  to  strengthen  procedures  regarding  auditing 
and certifying expenditure). 
Belgium (legislative measure on reporting of a suspected breach of integrity in a federal administrative authority by 
a  staff  member),  Bulgaria  (the  above  mentioned  National  strategy  2014-2020  with  the  aim  to  improve 
transparency),  Spain  (reported  a  new  horizontal  legislative  measure  establishing  the  statute  of  the  Transparency 
Council and listed additional provisions on transparency reported by autonomous communities (Balearic Islands, 
Catalonia, Galicia, Castile and Leon, Murcia and Navarre) and  Lithuania. 
Latvia  (administrative  penalties  regarding  violation  of  procedures  in  public  procurement  being  imposed  by  the 
Procurement Monitoring Bureau as of 2014, selective ex-ante control of procedures). 
Belgium, Bulgaria, Estonia, Spain, Ireland, France, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Hungary, Austria, Portugal, Romania, 
Slovenia and the United Kingdom. 

11 

 
 
 
 
                                                            
Eight Member States31 introduced specific measures to  prevent the  conflict  of interest. 
These concerned the following legislative and/or organisational provisions: 

o  Guidance on checks on conflict of interest (France and Italy  in the Cohesion 

policy area) 

o  Provisions concerning detection and reporting (France, Austria) 
o  Reorganisation  of  existing  bodies  or  strengthened  cooperation  (Austria, 

Romania) 

o  Amendments  to  the  Penal  Code  in  the  framework  of  the  fight  against 
corruption (Estonia,  Greece) and strengthened sanctions for conflict of interest 
(Romania)32  

o  Publication of information on preventing conflict of interest and corruption – a 

new legislative measure (Spain)33 

o  An IT tool as an ex-ante mechanism (Romania) 

Examples of measures: 

France  introduced  an  updated  administrative  guidance  on  the  introduction  of  checks  on 
conflict  of  interest  in  a  Vademecum,  distributed  by  the  Inspection  Coordination 
Committee34 in 2014 to its operation controllers, which highlighted the issue of conflict 
of interest. When the inspection plan is drawn up, checks are made to ascertain whether a 
conflict  of  interest  has  arisen  (previous  jobs  and  relations  with  others  persons  are 
inspected). Should a conflict of interest be detected, the CICC must be informed so that it 
can decide which measures to take. 

Italy introduced ex-ante checking for incompatibility and conflicts of interest, aiming to 
guarantee  that  staff  of  the  Audit  Authority  are  not  led  into  collusive  practices  vis-à-vis 
persons involved in the management of the Structural Funds and the EMFF (management 
structures and beneficiaries), who might act or behave fraudulently. 

Romania is developing an IT tool, 'Prevent', which is an ex-ante control mechanism for 
conflict of interest in public procurement (including those financed from EU funds). This 
IT tool will act as a kind of whistle-blower for stakeholders.  

31  
32  

33  

34  

Germany, Estonia, Greece, Spain, France, Italy, Austria and Romania. 
Romania  (As a part of the new criminal public policy, introduced an adapted definition of the conflict of interest 
criminal offence in the Criminal Code, which included strengthened sanctions). 
Spain  (Statute  of  the  ‘Transparency  Council’:  obligation  of  active  and  regular  publication  of  the  most  relevant 
information for the prevention of possible conflict of interest and corruption - a new strategy which must guarantee 
and  apply  the  law  by  monitoring  its  implementation.  Among  the  powers  of  the  TC  is  initiation  of  a  disciplinary 
procedure with possible application of penalties. The published information concerns tender, subsidies and public 
aid granted, indication of the amount, purpose and beneficiaries; remuneration received annually by senior officials 
and  heads  of  public  institutions  and  received  compensation,  if  any,  to  cease  or  leave  the  office;  decisions  of 
approval or recognition of compatibility affecting public employees, and authorisation of private activities of the 
public officials). 
Commission de Coordination des Contrôles (CICC). 

12 

 
 
 
 
                                                            
2.2.3.2. Corruption 

Eleven Member States35 referred to measures taken in order to eliminate corruption in the 
framework  of  other  measures  or  national  strategies  (corruption,  transparency  measures, 
auditing procedures) and introduced specific measures to fight corruption in the public 
procurement (see in the table below).  

These involved the following provisions: 

  Concerning the prevention of corruption: 

o  Legislative measures to 'prevent corruption of officials' implementing the legal 
instruments  of  the  Council  of  Europe  and  the  Council  Framework  Decision 
into national law (Germany, Latvia and Romania)36  

o  National Anti-Corruption programme (Lithuania)37 or a regional plan (Italy – a 

three year anti-corruption plan for Emilia Romagna) 

o  Declaration of Conflict of interest (Lithuania – clarified declarations of private 
interests and restrictions on the acceptance and offering of gifts and services by 
customs officers and state officials)  

o  Enhanced  the  transparency  strategy  to  fight  corruption  in  public  procurement 

(Hungary - activities by the Public Procurement Authority) 

  Targeted investigation (Italy - on the basis of the risk analysis concerning EU funding 

in the Agriculture food sector) 

  Sanctions and penalties (Estonia, Greece, Spain) 

35  
36  

Belgium, Estonia, Ireland, Greece, Spain, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Hungary,  Romania and Slovenia 
Germany  (improved  legal  framework),  Latvia  (concerning  liability  of  legal  persons),  Romania  (adopted  new 
definitions  of  corruption  offences  in  their  amended  Criminal  Code  as  a  part  of  their  National  Anticorruption 
Strategy 2012-2015).  

13 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                            
  
Table 2: Measures taken by Member States to counter corruption in public procurement 

The table shows answers of eleven Member States concerning adopted measures to fight corruption in public procurement (selected in the 
general part of the questionnaire). M1-M5 are numbers of measures answered in order in the general part of the questionnaire 
.

14 

MSBEEEESLVROSIMeasure No (answer 1 - 5)M4M1M1M2M1M2M3M4M5M2M4M5M2M3M4M5M3M4M2M1Public sector11111111111111111111Private sector111111Measures addressing transparency in public procurement11111111 Measures  to improve the effectiveness of management of the public procurement11111111Measures to prevent corruption amongst personnel, including management11111111111Measures addressing transparency of companies participating in public procurement11111Measures to improve the effectiveness of control and audit111111111111Corruption in public procurementIEELITLTHU 
 
 
 
 
Table 3: Additional answers and comments 

The  table  shows  additional  answers  and  comments  of  four  Member  States  regarding  ‘other  measures  to  fight  corruption  in  public 
procurement’ or ‘comments’ (free text field in the general part of the questionnaire). 

15 

MSEEIELVMeasure No (answer 1 - 5)M1M1M2M3M4Other: In 2014, Hungary had to draw up an action plan, in accordance with the Partnership Agreement, on proper performance of public procurement procedures when using EU funds. The action plan includes 22 measures (e.g. practical guidelines, preparing summaries, introducing a new law on public procurement, publishing sample public procurement notices and documentation), a number of which were implemented in 2014 (e.g. tighter definition of eligibility criteria, cooperation with the Competition Authority for more effective action against anti-competitive practices, anticorruption conference).Comment: To open competition as much as possible and prevent any discrimination in public procurement, immediate action was taken to strictly define eligibility requirements, with a view to preventing contracting entities from restricting competition in the course of tender procedures. In a given tender procedure, bidders may only be required to have a turnover of up to the estimated value of the contract and to have completed works in a similar field corresponding to 75% of the estimated value of the contract. The previous experience requirement is governed by the principle of technical equivalence.Corruption in public procurementHUComment: The Public Procurement Authority (PPA) is continuously improving its portal, which ensures open access to national public procurement notices. The PPA keeps a database of published notices and uses it for annual public procurement statistical analyses. The PPA publishes codes of ethics. The PPA places great emphasis on learning from international experiences related to combating corruption in public procurement, by organising professional conferences. The lists kept by the PPA (banned suppliers, excluded suppliers, recognised suppliers) also contribute to transparency.Other: All the above stated measures have not been introduced only during 2014. Some of measures are in place for longer period of time, e.g., asset disclosure for public officials, and is improved occasionally.Comment: Inspection Services Staff attended a 1 day briefing from an Advisor in DG Agri Anti Fraud in relation to Fraud in the CAP which covered the following topics: Irregularities and Fraud, Red Flags for Fraud in EAFRD Investment Projects and Fraud Prevention and Detection by PayingAgencies.Other: Clarification of Penal Code: In Section 300 of the Penal Code (Breaches of requirements of the Public Procurement Act), the scope of punishment was extended to cover legal persons. Section 300' Breach of procedural restriction - heavier punishment for particularly severe infringements (amounting to more than EUR 300 000).Other measures preventing corruption in public procurement; Comment 
 
 
 
 
2.2.3.3.Examples of adopted measures: 

Horizontal  measure:  Estonia  introduced  amendments  to  the  Penal  Code,  which  also 
includes fraud involving the use  of aid funds, the violation of public procurement rules 
and corruption offences. The Code removed the distinction between gratuities and bribes 
(both in terms of passive and active corruption), i.e. in the case of bribery, from the point 
of view of classification it is no longer important whether the official activity for which 
the bribe was given was legal or illegal. In light of this, the range of sanctions provided 
for  bribery  has  been  amended  (§  293  298).  The  criminal  liability  provision  relating  to 
breaches of public procurement requirements has been amended (Section 300).  

Specific  measure:  Greece  adopted  two  main  legislative  measures  aimed  at  fighting 
conflict  of  interest  and  corruption.  The  first  legislative  measure  adopted  to  prevent 
corruption of officials concerns the introduction of a penalty to prevent both active and 
passive  corruption  of  officials  in  the  public  sector.  Secondly,  a  legislative  amendment 
concerning  the  competence  of  the  Audit  Committee  was  introduced  in  the  audit  of 
declarations of assets and conflict of interest. 

2.2.4.  Measures on the Protection of Whistle-blowers 

2.2.4.1.Description of measures 

Although  the  ‘whistle-blowers’  area  was  marked  in  the  responses  of  nine  Member 
States38, only Belgium and Latvia adopted direct measures on the protection of Whistle-
blowers (see below). In Denmark the paying agency for agricultural funds established a 
web portal for reporting fraud. 

These concerned the following provisions: 

  Improvements in the context of the prevention of conflict of interest in the activities of 

public officials:   
-  Adoption  of  new  or  amended  legislative  provisions  on  the  basis  of  proposed 
measures to ensure the implementation of the recommendations adopted by the OECD 
Working  Group  on  Bribery  of  Foreign  Public  Officials  in  International  Business 
Transactions (Latvia and Slovakia). 

38  

Belgium,  Denmark,  Ireland,  Italy,  Latvia,  Lithuania,  Hungary,  Portugal  and  Slovakia:  Belgium  (legislative 
amendments on reporting of a suspected breach of integrity in a federal administrative authority by a member of its 
staff,  separate  measure  in  Flanders:    introduction  of  a  new  protocol  which  enhances  the  role  of  the  Flemish 
Ombudsman),  Denmark (operational measure: paying agency for agricultural funds has established a web-portal 
for reporting fraud),  Ireland (Anti-fraud briefing seminar vered by advisor from Dg AGRI in relation to EAFRD), 
Italy  (anti-corruption  plan  for  Emilia  Romagna),  Latvia  (1.  extended    scope  of  public  officials  in  the  Criminal 
Law, liability of legal persons was improved including adjudicating offences of public officials holding managerial 
positions,  2.operational  measure:  Inter-institutional  working  group  established  to  elaborate  whistleblower 
protection regulation), Lithuania (application of anti-fraud measures as required by Art. 125(4) of Regulation (EU) 
No 1303/2013, Hungary (operational measure on structured cooperation with law enforcement), Portugal (1.anti-
fraud seminar organised by IFAP in collaboration with DG AGRI, 2.legislation drafted by IFAP on the process of 
identifying risk situations of fraud) and Slovakia (legislative measure on the basis of proposed measures to ensure 
implementation  of  the  recommendations  adopted  by  the  OECD  Working  Group  on  Bribery  in  International 
Business Transactions for Slovakia). 

16 

 
 
 
 
                                                            
-  Reporting  system  of  a  suspected  breach  of  integrity  in  a  federal  administrative 
authority by a member of its staff (Belgium). 
  Fraud prevention, detection and prosecution: 

o  Inter-institutional  working  group  established  to  elaborated  whistle-blowers’ 

protection regulation (Latvia) 

o  Amended legislation to strengthen the protection of whistle-blowers (Belgium-

federal, Belgium – Flanders)  

o  IT  tools:  establishment  of  a  web-portal  for  reporting  fraud  in  Agriculture 

(Denmark)  

2.2.4.2.Example of a measure adopted in Belgium 

On federal level in Belgium a Royal Decree of 9 October 2014 implementing Article 3(2) 
of  the  Law  of  15 September 2013  concerning  the  ‘reporting  of  a  suspected  breach  of 
integrity  in  a  federal  administrative  authority  by  a  member  of  its  staff’  lays  down 
arrangements  for  the  establishment,  organisation,  operation,  responsibilities,  powers, 
roles, functions, selection and all other necessary procedures for the smooth operation of 
the internal component of the reporting system.  

An  additional  measure  was  adopted  by  the  Flemish  Government,  which  approved  a 
revised regulation on the protection of whistle-blowers’ and on 9 May 2014 it concluded 
a  new  protocol  with  the  Flemish  Ombudsman  to  strengthen  the  protection  of  whistle-
blowers.  

The new features of the whistleblowing system are as follows: 

-  the  Ombudsman  is  no  longer  bound  by  pre-determined  deadlines  for  investigating 
reported  irregularities  and  formally  deciding  to  place  a  staff  member  under  whistle-
blowers protection; 

- the Ombudsman no longer has to disclose at the start of the investigation the name of 
the protected staff member to the head of the authority concerned; 

- the authority concerned must show that any specific measure or disciplinary penalty 
against a protected staff member is unrelated to the whistleblowing; 

- the option of voluntary relocation of the staff member in question is now expressly 
provided for. 

A  member  of  staff  of  the  Flemish  Government  can,  therefore,  ask  the  Flemish 
Ombudsman for whistleblowing protection if he or she reports irregularities (Article II 3 
VPS) and fears reprisal.  

Under  the  procedure  provided  for  in  the  Ombudsdecreet,  the  Flemish  Ombudsman  can 
decide  to  place  the  person  concerned  under  protection  (Article  2a  (2)).  Such  protection 
continues for two years after the end of the investigation.  

17 

 
 
 
 
2.2.5.  Measures to prevent financial crime, organised crime and tax fraud 

Seventeen  Member  States39  reported  measures  to  prevent  financial  crime,  organised 
crime and tax fraud. 

These measures concerned the following areas in the whole anti-fraud cycle: 

2.2.5.1. Financial and Organised Crime: 

  Fraud prevention: 

o  Legislative  and  operational  provisions  introducing  or  amending  criminal 

offences to prevent financial crime (Romania)40 

o  Legislative measures to specifically tackle terrorist financing (Spain)41  
o  Administrative guidelines for authorities on the treatment of a suspected crime 

(Spain, Sweden)42 

o  Operational  measure  on  structured  cooperation  with 

law  enforcement 

(Hungary)43. 

  Prosecution and sanctions:  

o  Legislative  measures  to  control  cross-border  movements  of  cash,  new 

sanctions introduced (Belgium and Malta)44 

2.2.5.2. Financial Crime and Tax Fraud: 

  Fraud prevention: 

o  Measures to tackle fraud in the VAT area (Latvia, Estonia and Poland) 45 
o  Measure  to  tackle  tax  avoidance:  the  introduction  of  a  residence  disclosure 
notification  requirement  (Belgium)46  and  measure  in  the  tobacco  sector 
(Poland) 47 

39  

40  

41  
42  

43  

44  

45  

46  

47  

Belgium,  Bulgaria,  Czech  Republic,  Estonia,  Greece,  Cyprus,  Spain,  Latvia,  Lithuania,  Netherlands,  Hungary, 
Malta, Poland, Portugal,  Romania, Slovenia and Sweden. 
Romania (new definition of criminal offences as foreseen by its new Criminal Code and its implementing rules + 
operational provision: enhancing recovery of criminal prejudices through data analysis on perpetrators assets and 
through exchanging information with similar structures for other Member States or other international networks). 
Spain (amendment on prevention of money laundering and terrorist financing). 
Spain (money laundering and terrorist financing (risk-based approach, remodelling of procedural requirements and 
revision of institutional structure), Sweden (guidelines to clarify what is meant by errors and suspected crime: the 
target  group  are  administrators  and  directors  within  the  Swedish  authorities  who  deal  with  EU  funds,  horizontal 
measure, applicable to all funds). 
Hungary  (horizontal  provision:  exchange  of  information  among  bodies  and  authorities  involved  in  auditing  EU 
aid). 
Belgium  (horizontal  provision:  control  measures,  powers  and  record  of  notifications  –  punishment  of 
infringements),  Malta  (introduced  an  increased  punishment  related  to  a  number  of  offences  -  sanctions  for 
obtaining money or property by false pretences, corporate liability for offences  and other cases of fraudulent gain- 
consolidation of the Penal laws and laws of criminal procedure). 
Latvia  (introduced  operational  measure  to  include  risk  indicators  to  ensure  that  in  relevant  countries  of  the  EU 
involved  in  transactions  the  VAT  tax  is  correctly  calculated  and  paid),  Estonia  (VAT  -  changes  in  the  taxation 
law),  Poland (legislative measure - change in the rules governing the deduction of VAT from expenditure related 
to motor vehicles). 
Belgium  (legal  arrangements  to  be  declared  by  BE  residents:  disclosure  obligation  targets  trusts,  but  also  non-
resident companies, corporations, associations, foundations that are located in tax havens - in line with EU Savings 
Tax Directive). 
Poland (clarification of the rules on tobacco taxation to prevent tax avoidance). 

18 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                            
  Fraud prevention, detection and prosecution: 

o  Nine  Member  States48  introduced  administrative,  legislative,  organisational 
and  operational  measures  to  combat  financial  crime  and  tax  fraud  in  the 
customs sector49  

2.2.6.  Measures Reported Concerning Anti-Fraud Coordination Service (AFCOS) 

Six  Member  States  reported  in  the  general  part  of  the  questionnaire  specific  measures 
concerning their Anti-Fraud Coordination Service (AFCOS): 

  Fraud prevention: 

o  Designation of AFCOS (Spain and Sweden)50 
o  AFCOS reorganisation (Bulgaria) 
o  Introduction of a new communication strategy for AFCOS (France) 
o  New definitions of fraud offences and training (Romania) 

 

Investigation (Bulgaria and Malta). 

the  designation  of  the  Economic  Crimes  Authority 
Sweden  communicated 
(Ekobrottsmyndigheten)  as  the  Swedish  Anti-Fraud  Coordination  Service  (AFCOS). 
The decision was implemented by means of an amendment to the authority's instructions 
and entered into force on 1 January 201551. Spain appointed the national Anti-Fraud 
Coordination  Service  (Servicio  Nacional  de  Coordinación  Antifraude)  as  their  Anti-
Fraud  Coordination  Service  (AFCOS)  and  adopted  relevant  administrative  anti-fraud 
measures52. 

In  Bulgaria  there  was  AFCOS  reorganisation  (administrative  and  organisational 
measures)  in  2014  which  involved  the  creation  of  the  ‘Administrative  Investigations 
sector’ to  carry out  administrative investigations with  powers  to  require documents and 
information  by  state  and  local  authorities,  organizations,  companies  and  individuals, 

48  
49  

50  

51  
52  

Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Estonia, Greece, Latvia, Netherlands, Poland, Portugal and Slovenia 
Bulgaria (checks performed by the customs authorities, introduction of equipment for measuring and testing excise 
goods), Czech Republic (organisational measure: establishment of a special team bringing together the Corruption 
and  Financial  Crime  Detection  Section,  the  Directorate-General  for  Finance  and  the  Directorate-General  for 
Customs to tackle financial crime, in particular customs duty and VAT evasion), Estonia (changes in the taxation 
law),  Greece (introduced risk analysis criteria within the ICISnet, Customs information system to apply targeted 
customs  control  on  exports  of  any  goods),  Latvia  (amended  legislation  on  mutual  assistance  and  cooperation  – 
Naples  II  Convention  –  better  cooperation  for  faster  detection,  prevention  and  punishment  of  perpetrators), 
Netherlands  (adopted  two  specific  operational  measures  in  customs:  1.  antidumping  measure  concerning  solar 
panels  -  focus  on  declaring  false  countries  of  origin  or  by  transhipment  and  2.  general  intensified  controls  on 
origin – targeted checks in customs), Poland (guidelines on ‘Verifying the declared customs value of  textile goods 
and footwear imported from Far Eastern countries mainly from China’), Portugal (national budget law introduced 
law  on  customs  crimes,  indication  of  organised  crime  or  with  an  international  dimension)  and  Slovenia 
(reorganisation and adoption of a legislative framework which newly defined process for financial investigation). 
Sweden  and  Spain  reported  the  designation  of  AFCOS  as  one  of  their  most  important  measures  to  protect  the 
financial  interests  of  the  EU,  however,  in  2014  AFCOS  were  also  designated  in  Denmark,  Ireland,  Greece, 
Luxembourg,  Austria,  Portugal  and  the  United  Kingdom,  thus  by  the  end  of  2014  all  the  Member  States  had 
designated or established their Anti-Fraud Coordination Service. 
Pursuant to Article 3(4) of the OLAF Regulation (single legislative measure). 
It  was  established  by  the  Royal  decree  802/2014  of  19  September  which  involved  various  anti-fraud  measures, 
including  the  creation  of  the  ‘National  Accounting  Office’  and  updating  of  powers  of  various  bodies  (D.G.  for 
Community Funds; Secretariat-General for Autonomous and Local Coordination; D.G. for Public Service; D.G. for 
Coordination of powers with the Autonomous Communities and Local Authorities). 

19 

 
 
 
 
                                                            
conducting on-the-spot checks and taking statements from individual persons, while the 
control  on  the  procedures  for  irregularity  administration  were  transferred  to  the 
‘Irregularities  reporting’  sector.  AFCOS  staff  have  undergone  training  at  OLAF.  The 
creation of ‘Administrative investigations sector’ links up with the Directorate's statutory 
powers  to  conduct  administrative  investigations  for  the  purpose  of  establishing 
irregularities. 

The  French  AFCOS  (la  Délégation  Nationale  à  la  Lutte  contre  la  Fraude,  DNLF)  used 
part  of  its  website  to  improve  communication  on  measures  to  prevent  fraud  against  the 
European  Union's  financial  interests.  It  contains  information  summarising  the  DNLF's 
role  as  an  Anti-Fraud  Coordination  Service,  action  undertaken  by  relevant  national 
administrations,  a  presentation  of  OLAF,  an  interactive  map  of  Europe  showing  all 
European  AFCOS  that  are  DNLF  partners  (with  a  description  and  contact  details)  and, 
since December 2014, OLAF's press releases have been included on the site. The DNLF 
website  improves  communication  on  measures  to  prevent  fraud  against  the  European 
Union's financial interests by presenting the action of all the actors concerned and also by 
highlighting the European network of anti-fraud coordination services. 

Romania  reported  the  adoption  of  new  definitions  of  fraud  offences  against  the  EU’s 
financial  interests  and  training  on  this  matter.  The  amended  legislation  is  a  part  of 
implementation rules of the new Romanian Criminal Code and aligns with EU trends on 
fraud definition. In this regard the Romanian AFCOS (Departmentul pentru Lupta Anti-
Frauda, DLAF) has been involved in enhancing cooperation with judicial authorities and 
law  enforcement  agencies  for  targeting  inspections  and  investigations  and  for  the 
preparation  of  a  proper  implementation  of  antifraud  preventive  measures  for  the 
Multiannual Financial Framework for 2014-2020.  

Malta reported the preparation of a Manual on the Financial Investigative Function and 
Operations  of  the  Internal  Audit  and  Investigations  Department  (IAID).  The  manual 
includes  Malta's  obligations  under  bilateral,  multilateral  and  other  international 
agreements/arrangements against irregularities and fraud.  

20 

 
 
 
 
2.3. 

Structured answers of 28 Member States – measures taken concerning the EXPENDITURE areas of the EU budget 

21 

Public procurementFinancial crimeOrganised crimeCorruptionConflict of interestFraud definitionWhistle-blowersAFCOSOtherIf other please specifybrief description of the measurexNew LegislationMeasures to control cross-border movements of cash: notification requirement– control measures, powers and record of notifications – punishment of infringements26.01.2014Hbrief description of the measurexNew LegislationRoyal Decree of 9 October 2014 implementing Article 3(2) of the Law of 15 September 2013 concerning the reporting of a suspected breach of integrity in a federal administrative authority by a member of its staff. The Decree lays down arrangements for the establishment, organisation, operation, responsibilities, powers, roles, functions, selection and all other necessary procedures for the smooth operation of the internal component of the reporting system.09.10.2014Hbrief description of the measurexAmendmentThe law provides for the partial transposition of Directive 2012/27/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2012 on energy efficiency, amending Directives 2009/125/EC and 2010/30/EU and repealing Directives 2004/8/EC and 2006/32/EC, and Directive 2009/52/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 June 2009 providing for minimum standards on sanctions and measures against employers of illegally staying third-country nationals.15.05.2014HBEM5In the law (and of course in the Royal Decree), a suspected breach of integrity means: (a) an action or a failure to act by a staff member that infringes the laws, decrees, circulars, internal rules and internal procedures applying to the federal administrative authorities and their staff; (b) an action or a failure to act by a staff member which entails an unacceptable risk to the life, health or safety of people or the environment;(c) an action or failure to act.LEGISLATIVE MEASUREscope of legislationreasons for legislative measuresComptences;PowersTo clarify or consolidate existing rules;To remedy flaws11111BEM4Royal Decree of 9 October 2014 implementing Article 3(2) of the Law of 15 September 2013 concerning the reporting of a suspected breach of integrity in a federal administrative authority by a member of its staff. The Decree lays down arrangements for the establishment, organisation, operation, responsibilities, powers, roles, functions, selection and all other necessary procedures for the smooth operation of the internal component of the reporting system (see additional measure for the Flemish Community).1Law of 15 May 2014 amending the Law on public procurement and certain works, supply and service contracts of 15 June 2006 and the Law of 13 August 2011 concerning public procurement and certain works, supply and service contracts in the fields of defence and security. Relates to public  procurement.1LEGISLATIVE MEASUREscope of legislationreasons for legislative measuresOther - Scope (in personae – exclusions): Right of access and qualitative selection of candidates and tenderers for public procurement; Technical specifications set out in public documents by public authority; Award proceduresTo clarify or consolidate existing rules;To enforce the rules in line with developments in EU lawEXPENDITURE - Most important anti-fraud measures adopted by Member States in 2014 under Article 325 TFEU11BEM3Royal Decree of 26 January 2014 on measures to control cross-border movements of cash. Relates to money laundering.LEGISLATIVE MEASUREscope of legislationreasons for legislative measuresCompetences;Powers;Criminal sanctions (new);Other: Notification requirementTo clarify or consolidate existing rules;To enforce the rules in line with developments in EU law1dateHorizontal measure (H)Sectoral measureMember StateMeasureTitle and description of measureDOMAINSinglePackageNew measure or UpdateSpecify type of measure (legislative, administrative, operational and/or organisational) 
 
 
 
 
 
22 

Public procurementFinancial crimeOrganised crimeCorruptionConflict of interestFraud definitionWhistle-blowersAFCOSOtherIf other please specifyBEAdditional measurexbrief description of the measureNew legislation + AmdThe National Strategy envisages the drafting and adoption of legislative acts relating to the application of European legislation already in force, the removal of shortcomings in the existing legislative framework and the further development of the nationаl statutory rules protecting the financial interests of the EU.31.12.2016type of act within measureNew measure + UpdateOther: Administrative measures are to be taken both in the implementation of the adopted strategy and under the 2015-2016 Action Plan.31.12.2016New measure + Update31.12.2016New measure + Update31.12.2016The Strategy comprises 4 goals (areas): 1-stepping up prevention (through new regulations, increased administrative capacity, transparency and access to information); 2-increasing effectiveness in detecting and countering irregularities and fraud (strengthened cooperation between revenue authorities, enhanced internal control and interaction between State bodies, the private sector, non-governmental organisations and civil society);3-strengthening cooperation with OLAF and the competent institutions of the EU and the Member States;4-increasing the effectiveness of activities in the fields of investigation, recovery and penalties.LEGISLATIVE MEASUREMeasureTitle and description of measureDOMAINSinglePackageNew measure or UpdatedateHscope of legislationreasons for legislative measuresCompetences;Powers;Definition of a specific topic;Recovery;Financial penalties;Other administrative penaltiesTo clarify or consolidate existing rules;To remedy flaws;To enforce the rules in line with developments in EU lawADMINISTRATIVE MEASUREscope of administrative measureCompetence;Inter- agency cooperation ;General trainings;Fraud awareness trainings;Simplification of procedures Increased resourcesOPERATIONAL MEASUREscope of operational measureexpected results of operational measureIT tools ("IT data feeding", "Other IT");Web reporting/Hotline;Flagging practice;Risk indicators; Increased number of checks;Structured cooperation with law enforcement;Structured cooperation with judicial authoritiesEnhanced coordination;Enhanced cooperation;Enhanced information flow;Targeting of checks;Targeting of investigations;Enhanced ex-ante controls;Enhanced ex-post controlsreasons for administrative measureManagement of funds;Monitoring/desk checks ;On the spot checks;Investigation;Irregularities reporting;Penalties; RecoveryTo clarify or consolidate existing rules;To enhance existing measure Specify type of measure (legislative, administrative, operational and/or organisational)EXPENDITURE - Most important anti-fraud measures adopted by Member States in 2014 under Article 325 TFEUMember StateHorizontal measure (H)Sectoral measureORGANISATIONAL MEASUREscope of organisational measureexpected results in terms of resources 1BGM1By a Decision of the Council of Ministers recorded under Minutes No 53, item 4, of 17 December 2014, the Government adopted a National Strategy, for the period 2014-2020, for preventing and combating irregularities and fraud affecting the financial interests of the EU. For the effective achievement of the strategic and operational goals set, specific activities will be set out in an Action Plan for 2015-2016 for the Implementation of the National Strategy, with the responsible institutions being specified and the specific deadlines set.Like the Federal Government (see measure 4), the Flemish Government has had a whistle-blowing mechanism since 2004. The whistle-blowing mechanism is provided for in the Ombudsdecreet (decree of 7 July 1998 establishing the Ombudsman's Service) and in the protocols concluded between the Flemish Ombudsman and the Flemish Government and Audit Vlaanderen (formerly IAVA, Internal Audit Department of the Flemish Administration).The decree establishing the Ombudsman's Service was amended to strengthen protection for whistle-blowers. On Friday 6 December 2013 the Flemish Government approved the revised regulation for the protection of whistle-blowers and on 9 May 2014 it concluded a new protocol with the Flemish Ombudsman. New features of the whistle-blowing system are:- the Ombudsman is no longer bound by pre-determined deadlines for investigating reported irregularities and formally deciding to place a staff member under whistle-blower protection;- the Ombudsman no longer has to disclose at the start of the investigation the name of the protected staff member to the head of the authority concerned;- the authority concerned must show that any specific measure or disciplinary penalty against a protected staff member is unrelated to the whistle-blowing;- the option of voluntary relocation of the staff member in question is now expressly provided for.A member of staff of the Flemish Government can thus ask the Flemish Ombudsman for whistle-blowing protection if he or she reports irregularities (Article II 3 VPS) and fears reprisals. Under the procedure provided for in the Ombudsdecreet, the Flemish Ombudsman can decide to place the person concerned under protection (Article 2a (2)). Such protection continues for two years after the end of the investigation. During the protection period the competent authority can only impose disciplinary penalties on or take other measures against the whistle-blower if they are unrelated to the reporting of the irregularity. Already ongoing administrative procedures are suspended and can only be resumed if the ombudsman's investigation shows that they are unrelated to the reporting of the irregularity. Note: There is no whistleblowing mech\anism as yet in Wallonia or Brussels Capital.  
 
 
 
 
23 

Public procurementFinancial crimeOrganised crimeCorruptionConflict of interestFraud definitionWhistle-blowersAFCOSOtherIf other please specifyxbrief description of the  measureNew legislationThe new public procurement act (ZOP) will transpose the new European public procurement Directives 2014/24/EU and 2014/25/EU and the existing Directives 2009/81/EC and 2007/66/EC. It will open up possibilities for using e-procurement tools (including the electronic tendering stage), launching an electronic auction, using an electronic catalogue, a dynamic delivery system, etc.,  in accordance with the scope and time limits provided for in the European Directives.01.01.2016type of act within measureNew measure Other: Administrative measures are to be taken both in the implementation of the adopted strategy and under the 2015-2016 Action Plan.31.12.2016New measure 31.12.2016New measure31.12.2016Inter- agency cooperation ; General trainings; Simplification of procedures;Other: It is planned to: 1. organise and conduct training for the staff of contracting authorities, of bodies with public procurement responsibilities and of Managing Authorities, as well as for students; 2. develop a mechanism for effective cooperation, with the aim of ensuring consistency between actions during ex-ante and ex-post control.Neutral on resourcesOPERATIONAL MEASURE1BGM2New measure or UpdatedateHorizontal measure (H)Sectoral measureADMINISTRATIVE MEASUREscope of administrative measureThe National Strategy for developing the public procurement sector in Bulgaria over the period 2014-2020, adopted by Decision No 498 of the Council of Ministers dated 11 July 2014. Implementation of the Strategy will lead to an improvement in the legislative and institutional framework in the field of public procurement, enhancing the degree of publicity and transparency in the awarding of such contracts. The Strategy contains measures covering five domains. For their implementation it is planned to carry out specific activities under the adopted Plan for the Implementation of the National Strategy, with the responsible institutions being specified and the specific deadlines set.1scope of operational measureexpected results of operational measureIT tools ("IT data feeding", "Other IT"); Other: It is planned to: revamp the design and structure of the public procurement portal; select a national model for e-procurement and adopt a conceptual approach with an action plan for the introduction of the selected e-procurement model in Bulgaria; introduce the mandatory use of the stages 'Electronic publication' and 'Electronic documentation'.Enhanced information flow;Enhanced ex-ante controls;Enhanced ex-post controlsresons for administrative measureOther:The scope of the strategy for developing the public procurement sector in Bulgaria over the period 2014-2020 relates exclusively to the conduct of public procurement. It envisages: 1. the drawing up of practical manuals for applying legislation in the field of public procurement; 2. enhancing the effectiveness of penalties imposed in relation to irregularities in the field of public procurement.To clarify or consolidate existing rules; Cross-cutting measure: The introduction of e-procurement concerns the conditions under which beneficiaries, in their capacity as contracting authorities, will be able to choose a contractor to carry out activities financed with EU funding under European funds and programmes. The implemented stages of e-procurement will be relevant for the conduct of procedures by all contracting authorities.ORGANISATIONAL MEASUREscope of organisational measureexpected results in terms of resources EXPENDITURE - Most important anti-fraud measures adopted by Member States in 2014 under Article 325 TFEUMember StateMeasureTitle and description of measureDOMAINSinglePackageThe domains on which the Strategy will impact are: 1. Legislation in the field of public procurement; 2. Application of the legislation in that field; 3. Publicity and transparency in public procurement; 4. Strengthening administrative capacity and professionalism in the sector; 5. Control system.Hscope of legislationreasons for legislative measuresCompetences, Powers, Definition of a specific topic, Financial penalties, Other administrative penalties+ Other: As part of the implementation of the National Strategy adopted in 2014, drafting work is under way on a new Framework Act on Public Procurement which is scheduled to enter into force as from 1 January 2016. The draft public procurement act will transpose the new European Directives 2014/24/EU and 2014/25/EU and the existing Directives 2009/81/ЕC and 2007/66/ЕCTo clarify or consolidate existing rules;To remedy flaws;To enforce the rules in line with developments in EU lawSpecify type of measure (legislative, administrative, operational and/or organisational)LEGISLATIVE MEASURE 
 
 
 
 
24 

Public procurementFinancial crimeOrganised crimeCorruptionConflict of interestFraud definitionWhistle-blowersAFCOSOtherIf other please specifyxtype of act within  measureNew measure Other:Order № К-4139/19.12.2013 of the Interior Minister establishing the 'Administrative Investigations' sector' and dissolving the 'Administrative Controls' sector, in force since 1 January 2014.31.12.2016New measure 01.02.2014xUpdate29.07.2014Specify type of measure (legislative, administrative, operational and/or organisational)The domains on which the Strategy will impact are: 1. Legislation in the field of public procurement; 2. Application of the legislation in that field; 3. Publicity and transparency in public procurement; 4. Strengthening administrative capacity and professionalism in the sector; 5. Control system.ADMINISTRATIVE MEASUREBGM3At the AFCOS Directorate of the Ministry of the Interior, an 'Administrative Investigations' sector was established on 1 February 2014. The staff there have undergone training at OLAF. The creation of this sector links up with the Directorate's statutory powers to conduct administrative investigations for the purpose of establishing irregularities and fraud affecting the EU’s financial interests either on its own initiative or at OLAF’s request. The measure referred to was adopted in the context of the AFCOS Directorate performing its functions and duties in connection with defending the financial interests of the EU.Hscope of administrative measureresons for administrative measureMonitoring/desk checks; On the spot checks; Investigation; Recovery; Other: The purpose of the measure is to increase the AFCOS Directorate's administrative capacity for the purpose of carrying out investigations and associated activities. These activities, carried out by the officials of the AFCOS Directorate's newly created "Administrative Investigations" sector in the performance of their duties, include verifying documents, requesting information and documents from State and local bodies and natural and legal persons, making on-the-spot checks and taking statements from individual persons.To clarify or consolidate existing rules;To enhance existing measure; Cross-cutting measure, multi-agency measure/ measure with impact on various bodies Cross-cutting measure: The administrative investigations carried out may concern any entity administering European funds, instruments or programmesORGANISATIONAL MEASUREscope of organisational measure1expected results in terms of resources Reorganisation of existing bodies; Fraud awareness trainings; Other: In implementation of the above-mentioned Order of the Interior Minister, the AFCOS Directorate underwent reorganisation. As from 1 February 2014, the 'Administrative Controls' sector was dissolved, with the activities carried out by that sector being transferred to the 'Irregularities Reporting' sector. A new 'Administrative Investigations' sector was established. Its head and staff underwent a one-week training course at OLAF in March 2014 on the conduct of administrative investigations, the aim being to enhance administrative capability in the battle against fraud and in the underlying effort to defend the EU's financial interests.Increased resourcesEXPENDITURE - Most important anti-fraud measures adopted by Member States in 2014 under Article 325 TFEUMember StateMeasureTitle and description of measureDOMAINSinglePackageNew measure or UpdatedateHorizontal measure (H)Sectoral measureBGM4Further development of ISUN 2020: In BG a unified information system is used for managing all operational programmes co-financed through the ESIF over the programming period 2014-2020: the Information system for management and supervision for the programming period 2014-2020 (ISUN 2020). The further development of the system will enhance the analytical capabilities of ISUN 2020, widening the scope for deriving information that can be used for prevention purposes in the battle against fraud.111Within the ISUN 2020 system, links will be set up for the exchange of data with, inter alia, the National Statistical Institute, the Commercial Register, the BULSTAT Register and Register of Minimum Aid and State Aid. This feature will enhance ISUN 2020's analytical capabilities, increasing the scope for deriving information that can be used for prevention purposes in the battle against fraud, including in terms of double financing checks, outsourcing, supervision, analysis and evaluation. And it will also result in additional guarantees for the prevention and detection of fraud and irregularities in connection with operational programmes.OPERATIONAL MEASUREscope of operational measureexpected results of operational measureCohesion PolicyIT tools ("IT data feeding", "Other IT");Increased number of checksEnhanced information flow;Targeting of checks;Targeting of investigations;Enhanced ex-ante controlsOthers:The further development of ISUN 2020 will enhance the system's analytical capabilities, increasing the scope for deriving information that can be used for prevention purposes in the battle against fraud, including in terms of double financing checks, supervision, analysis and evaluation. And it will provide an additional guarantee for the prevention and detection of fraud and irregularities in connection with operational programmes.  
 
 
 
 
25 

Public procurementFinancial crimeOrganised crimeCorruptionConflict of interestFraud definitionWhistle-blowersAFCOSOtherIf other please specifyxNew measure01.04.2014type of act within  measurexUpdateCirculaire/circular, Instructions, Guidelines, ManualsxUpdate30.09.2014Enhanced information flow;Targeting of checksEXPENDITURE - Most important anti-fraud measures adopted by Member States in 2014 under Article 325 TFEUMember StateMeasureTitle and description of measureDOMAINSinglePackageNew measure or UpdatedateHorizontal measure (H)Sectoral measureDKM1The paying agency for agricultural funds has established a web-portal for reporting fraud at:http://naturerhverv.dk/tilskud-selvbetjening/anmeld-ulovligt-brug-af-eu-tilskud/Agriculture / Fisheriesscope of operational measure1expected results of operational measureWeb reporting/HotlineDEM1Rules on the procurement procedure1ADMINISTRATIVE MEASUREHscope of administrative measureresons for administrative measureEligibility criteria;Management of fundsSpecify type of measure (legislative, administrative, operational and/or organisational)DEM2Working group on fraud prevention to produce guidance for paying agencies in the agricultural sector. Implementation of  fraud prevention measures in the fishing sector (EMFF).1Implementation of fraud prevention measures in accordance with European Commission rules.OPERATIONAL MEASURETo clarify or consolidate existing rulesOPERATIONAL MEASUREAgriculture / Fisheriesscope of operational measureRisk indicators;Increased number of checks;Other: Improved procedures in the field of fraud prevention through alignment of implementing measures within the bodies involved.Enhanced coordination;Enhanced cooperation;Enhanced information flow;Targeting of checks;Targeting of investigations;expected results of operational measure 
 
 
 
 
26 

Public procurementFinancial crimeOrganised crimeCorruptionConflict of interestFraud definitionWhistle-blowersAFCOSOtherIf other please specifybrief description of the  measurexAmendmentA subsection 4 has been added to Section 210 of the Penal Code, which provides that courts will apply extended confiscation of assets acquired through benefit fraud under Section 832 of the Penal Code. The Code removed the distinction between gratuities and bribes (both in terms of passive and active corruption), i.e. in the case of bribery, from the point of view of classification it is no longer important whether the official activity for which the bribe was given was legal or illegal. In light of this, the range of sanctions provided for bribery has been amended. (§ 293 298). The criminal liability provision relating to breaches of the public procurement requirements has been amended (Section 300).23.12.2014xUpdate30.04.2014Update30.04.2014EXPENDITURE - Most important anti-fraud measures adopted by Member States in 2014 under Article 325 TFEUMember StateMeasureTitle and description of measureDOMAINOn 1 May 2014, a centrally-administered Economic Crimes Bureau was established under the aegis of the Police and Border Guard Board, one of its priorities being to investigate fraud connected with aid funds.OPERATIONAL MEASUREEEM1Amendments to the Penal Code, which also include fraud connected with the use of aid funds, the violation of public procurement rules and corruption offences. The full text of the Act can be found at: https://www.riigiteataja.ee/en/eli/522012015002/consolide11111A large number of the constituent elements of and punishments for crimes were specified in the Penal Code.LEGISLATIVE MEASUREHSinglePackageNew measure or UpdateSpecify type of measure (legislative, administrative, operational and/or organisational)dateHorizontal measure (H)Sectoral measureEEM2111scope of legislationreasons for legislative measuresDefinition of a specific topic;Criminal sanctions (more)To clarify or consolidate existing rulesORGANISATIONAL MEASUREAgriculture / Fisheries / Cohesion Policyscope of organisational measureexpected results in terms of resources Reorganisation of existing bodies; CompetenceIncreased resourcesscope of operational measureexpected results of operational measureStructured cooperation with law enforcement; Structured cooperation with judicial authorities;Enhanced coordination;Enhanced cooperation; Enhanced information flow; Targeting of investigations; Other: Improved coordination of the investigation of economic crimes and fraud, as well as cooperation with law enforcement authorities. 
 
 
 
 
 
27 

Public procurementFinancial crimeOrganised crimeCorruptionConflict of interestFraud definitionWhistle-blowersAFCOSOtherIf other please specifyxUpdate01.10.2014type of act within  measurexNew measureCirculate/circular, Instructions, Guidelines, Manualsxtype of act within measureNew measure Action PlanNew measure 01.01.2014New measure01.01.2014IEM3Improved management and control procedures to gain to gain reasonable assurance that the 2%threshold of errors is maintained throughout the ESF cascade.1Reduction in ineligible expenditure being certified to the Commission in ESF claims.ADMINISTRATIVE MEASURECohesion Policyscope of administrative measureresons for administrative measureexpected results of operational measureRisk indicators;Increased number of checksEnhanced coordination;Targeting of checks;Enhanced ex-ante controlsIEM2Departmental Anti-fraud Policy Statement and Fraud Response Plan11111ADMINISTRATIVE MEASURECross-cutting measure, multi-agency measure/ measure with impact on various bodies: Managing Authority will not accept any ESF claim where errors exceed the 2% threshold level. Errors uncovered must be removed from the ESF claim and audit, desk checks and on the spot checking procedures must be repeated until errors fall within the 2% threshold.ORGANISATIONAL MEASUREscope of organisational measureexpected results in terms of resources Reorganisation of existing bodies;Inter- agency cooperation;Increased resourcesOPERATIONAL MEASUREscope of operational measureIEM1Anti-Fraud Briefing Seminar delivered by Advisor from DG Agri Anti-Fraud in relation to EAFRD.111111ORGANISATIONAL MEASUREAgriculturescope of organisational measureexpected results in terms of resources Fraud awareness trainingsNeutral on resourcesHorizontal measure (H)Management of funds;Monitoring/desk checks;On the spot checks;Audit checklist;DOMAINSinglePackageNew measure or UpdateSpecify type of measure (legislative, administrative, operational and/or organisational)dateEXPENDITURE - Most important anti-fraud measures adopted by Member States in 2014 under Article 325 TFEUMember StateMeasureTitle and description of measureSectoral measureAgriculturescope of administrative measureresons for administrative measureManagement of funds; Monitoring/desk checks; On the spot checks; Investigation; Irregularities reporting; Penalty; RecoveryTo enhance existing measure 
 
 
 
 
28 

Public procurementFinancial crimeOrganised crimeCorruptionConflict of interestFraud definitionWhistle-blowersAFCOSOtherIf other please specifybrief description of the  measurexNew measure21.20.2014brief description of the  measurexAmendmentThis is a measure within the framework of legislation to combat corruption and enhance transparency, especially with a view to reinforcing the fight against corruption in the public sector and penalising corrupt behaviour among public officials.07.04.2014brief description of the  measurexAmendmentThis is a measure to combat corruption and increase transparency, relating to the submission and control of the asset declarations of public officials and persons of public interest. The new provisions are necessary to extend the obligation to other categories of persons, to strengthen the competent Audit Committee, to address shortcomings encountered in the implementation of the currently applicable law and make it more effective by employing new technologies.08.08.2014ELM1Setting up a Register of Fiscal Auditors and Auditors of the Fiscal Audit Committee (Auditing Authority)11Setting up a Register of Fiscal Auditors and Auditors of the Fiscal Audit Committee (EDEL) with a view to ensuring full harmonisation of fiscal control with the internationally accepted auditing standards, in line with the need to continuously evaluate and register staff engaged in fiscal control relating to the above-mentioned audits in a corresponding register, by recording specific information about them in the context of the implementation of the principles of sound financial management and transparency, so as to ensure that audits are effective and achieve their objectives.ORGANISATIONAL MEASUREFisheries / Cohesion Policy / Migration and Asylumscope of organisational measureexpected results in terms of resources Other: The Register of Fiscal Auditors and EDEL Auditors will strengthen transparency of audits carried out by EDEL and improve their effectiveness. This measure also aims to prevent fraud and contributes to the smooth implementation of the EDEL audit programme and the prevention of corruption.Neutral on resourcesLEGISLATIVE MEASUREHscope of legislationreasons for legislative measuresFinancial penalties;Criminal sanctions (more)To remedy flaws;To enforce the rules in line with developments in EU law;LEGISLATIVE MEASUREHscope of legislationreasons for legislative measuresCompetences;PowersTo remedy flaws;ELM3Audit of declarations of assets and conflict of interest - Article 222 of Law 4281/2014 'Measures to support and develop the Greek economy, organisational issues of the Ministry of Finance and other provisions'.11Specify type of measure (legislative, administrative, operational and/or organisational)ELM2Legislative reforms to repair the damage from wrongdoings relating to active and passive corruption: a) Paragraph IE of Law 4254/2014 ‘Measures to support and develop the Greek economy in the context of implementation of Law 4046/2012 and other provisions’. b) Article 32 of Law 4258/2014 'Definition procedure and regulation of matters relating to water courses – urban planning arrangements'111EXPENDITURE - Most important anti-fraud measures adopted by Member States in 2014 under Article 325 TFEUMember StateMeasureTitle and description of measureDOMAINSinglePackageNew measure or UpdatedateHorizontal measure (H)Sectoral measure 
 
 
 
 
29 

Public procurementFinancial crimeOrganised crimeCorruptionConflict of interestFraud definitionWhistle-blowersAFCOSOtherIf other please specifybrief description of the  measurexNew legislationThe new law on the NSRF 2014-2020 includes provisions to prevent and combat fraud in structural actions. In particular, Article 52 includes: the formulation of a National Strategy and an Action Plan, which sets out measures pertaining to procedures of the Management and Control System applied by the authorities involved in the management of the Operational Programmes. Relevant provisions are also included in Articles 22, 38 and 57.23.12..2014brief description of the  measurexAmendmentIt completes the risk-based approach, which it sets out in greater detail; remodelling of procedural requirements; creation of a financial ownership file; revision of the institutional structure.05.05.2014brief description of the  measurexNew legislationIt regulates the functional and technical requirements of the accounting register of invoices of the bodies that come under the scope of Law 25/2013 on electronic invoices.27.03.2014brief description of the  measurexNew legislationCreation of the national Anti-fraud Coordination Service; updating of the powers of various bodies (D.G. for Community Funds; adjustments to the powers of the D.G. for Public Service under Law 27/2013 on the Rationalisation and Sustainability of Local Administrations).19.09.20141Structural actions, the NSRF 2014-2020LEGISLATIVE MEASURECohesion Policyscope of legislationreasons for legislative measuresOther: Adapting the requirements of the European Union regulatory framework for the period 2014-2020To enforce the rules in line with developments in EU lawELM5Law on the management, control and implementation of development interventions for the Programming period 2014-2020, some articles of which include measures for prevention and combat of fraud in structural actions under the NSRF 2014-2020; Law 4314/2014 (Government Gazette, Series I, No 265/23.12.2014)LEGISLATIVE MEASUREHscope of legislationreasons for legislative measuresCompetences;Definition of a specific topicTo clarify or consolidate existing rules;To remedy flawsESM1Implementing Regulation for Law 10/2010 of 28 April 2010 on prevention of money laundering and terrorist financing; Royal Decree 304/2014 of 5 May 2014.11LEGISLATIVE MEASUREHscope of legislationreasons for legislative measuresCompetences;Definition of a specific topicTo clarify or consolidate existing rules;To enforce the rules in line with developments in EU lawESM2It regulates the functional and technical requirements of the accounting register of invoices provided for by Law 25/2013 of 27 December 2013; Order HAP/492/2014.111Creation of the National Accounting Office; emphasis on information and communications; updating of powers of various bodies (D.G. for Community Funds; Secretariat-General for Autonomous and Local Coordination; D.G. for Public Service; D.G. for Coordination of powers with the Autonomous Communities and Local Authorities).LEGISLATIVE MEASUREHscope of legislationreasons for legislative measuresCompetences;To enforce the rules in line with developments in EU lawESM3Creation of the national Anti-Fraud Coordination Service and other administrative measures; Royal Decree 802/2014.EXPENDITURE - Most important anti-fraud measures adopted by Member States in 2014 under Article 325 TFEUDOMAINSinglePackageNew measure or UpdatedateHorizontal measure (H)Sectoral measureMember StateMeasureTitle and description of measureSpecify type of measure (legislative, administrative, operational and/or organisational) 
 
 
 
 
30 

Public procurementFinancial crimeOrganised crimeCorruptionConflict of interestFraud definitionWhistle-blowersAFCOSOtherIf other please specifybrief description of the  measurexAmendmentThe role of the Subsidies Database, which comes under the responsibility of the General State Comptroller (IGAE), is stepped up. It must forward the calls that it receives to publicise to the Official State Gazette for publication. Penalties may be imposed for lack of publicity. Public access is given to the National Subsidies Database. Requirement for the judicial and administrative authorities to notify, for their publication in the Database, the penalties imposed for preventing access to subsidies.16.09.2014brief description of the  measurexNew legislationIt establishes the Statute of the Transparency Council, which must guarantee and apply the law by monitoring its implementation and intervening in penalty procedures in order to improve transparency, access to public information and good governance31.10.2014ESAdditional measuretype of act within  measurexUpdateCirculaire/Circular, Instructions, Guidelines, ManualsSpecify type of measure (legislative, administrative, operational and/or organisational)1Public subsidiesLEGISLATIVE MEASUREAgriculture / Fisheries / Cohesion policy / Centralised direct management / Migration scope of legislationreasons for legislative measuresCompetences;Financial penalties;Other administrative penalties;To remedy flawsESM4Measures to guarantee transparency in public subsidies by amending Law 38/2003 of 17 November 2003, the General Subsidies Act.LEGISLATIVE MEASUREHscope of legislationreasons for legislative measuresCompetences;To clarify or consolidate existing rulesESM5Statute of the Transparency Council; Royal Decree 919/201411InvestigationTo enhance existing measureEXPENDITURE - Most important anti-fraud measures adopted by Member States in 2014 under Article 325 TFEUMember StateMeasureTitle and description of measureDOMAINSinglePackageNew measure or UpdatedateHorizontal measure (H)Sectoral measureFRM1The 2014 vademecum, distributed by the Inspection Coordination Committee (Commission de Coordination des Contrôles - CICC) for its operation controllers, highlighted the problem of conflicts of interest. When the inspection plan is drawn up, checks are made to ascertain whether they are in a situation of conflicts of interest (previous post or relations with persons inspected). Should this be the case, the CICC must be informed so that it can decide on the measures to take.1ADMINISTRATIVE MEASURECohesion policyscope of administrative measurereasons for administrative measureAs stated in the document 'Follow-up recommendations to the Commission report on the protection of the EU's financial interest-fight against fraud, 2013', among the provisions notified by the Autonomous Communities there is a sizeable group which applies the state legislation on transparency. The main provisions notified by the Autonomous Communities are as follows: REGION OF MURCIA: Law 12/2014 of 16 December 2014 on transparency and civic participation. AUTONOMOUS COMMUNITY OF GALICIA: Law 14/2013 of 26 December 2013 on Rationalisation of the Public  Sector in the Autonomous Community; the Institutional Code of Ethics of the Regional Government of Galicia. AUTONOMOUS COMMUNITY OF CASTILLE AND LEON: It has informed us of the following: an integrated administrative procurement platform has been set up by Decree 54/2014 of 23 October 2014 regulating the registering of invoices in Castille and Leon's accounting information system; the Duero system, an integrated administrative procurement system; promotion of the Autonomous Community's transparency and civic participation portal. AUTONOMOUS COMMUNITY OF THE BALEARIC ISLANDS: Law 4/2011 of 31 March 2011 on Good Administration and Governance of the Balearic Islands. EXTREMADURA: Law 1/2014 of 18 February 2014  regulating the Statute of Public Officials of the Government and Administration of the Regional Government of Extremadura. It has also  informed us of the establishment of a communication channel with the tax authorities, as a measure to improve the quality of controls and  audits. THE REGIONAL GOVERNMENT OF CATALONIA has informed us of Law 19/2014 of 29 December 2014  on Transparency, Access to Information and Good Governance, and Instruction 1/2014 of 9 January 2014 from the Director of the Office for the Supervision and Evaluation of Public Procurement aimed at increasing transparency and optimising  aspects of public  procurement procedures. As regards NAVARRE, it is worth noting its procedure for ensuring the reasonableness of costs on the basis of Article 58 of Regulation 1306/2013. The procedure is designed to establish anti-fraud measures and measures to verify the reasonableness of costs. 
 
 
 
 
31 

Public procurementFinancial crimeOrganised crimeCorruptionConflict of interestFraud definitionWhistle-blowersAFCOSOtherxNew measure03.03..2014xNew measure01.05.2014type of act within  measurexUpdateCirculaire/Circular, Instructions, Guidelines, ManualsSpecify type of measure (legislative, administrative, operational and/or organisational)ORGANISATIONAL MEASURECohesion Policy scope of organisational measureexpected results in terms of resources Fraud awareness trainings;Other: Internal training measuresNeutral on resourcesFRM2For the 2014-2020 programming period, the management of structural funds in France will largely fall within the remit of the Regional Councils. As the independent auditing authority for the designation procedure, the CICC has impressed upon the future Managing Authorities (MAs) and Certifying Authorities (CAs) the need to set out a framework for fraud prevention. The CICC translated and circulated to the MAs and CAs the checklist contained in Annex 3 of the guidance note on designation.1FRM4Updating of the guide to detection of financial operations that may be linked to corruption (authors of the guide: Central Service for the Prevention of Corruption (Service central de prévention de la corruption [SCPC] and TRACFIN, the national Financial Intelligence Unit under the Financial Action Task Force. The main purpose of this update is to take into account the amendments of the Law of 6 December 2013 on stepping up the fight against serious economic and financial crime. The first version of the guide was dated 2008. A new edition was published in March 2014.11ORGANISATIONAL MEASUREHscope of organisational measureexpected results in terms of resources Other: Institutional communication: the DNLF website improves communication on measures to prevent fraud against European Union interests by presenting the action of all the actors concerned and also by highlighting the European network of anti-fraud coordination services. This communication activity thus helps to prevent and detect fraud against the EU's interestsNeutral on resourcesFRM3The DNLF has used part of its website to improve communication on measures to prevent fraud against European Union interests. It contains information summarising the DNLF's role as an Anti-Fraud Coordination Service (AFCOS), action undertaken by relevant national administrations, a presentation of OLAF that has been approved by its communication service, an interactive map of Europe showing all European AFCOS that are DNLF partners (with a description and contact details) and, since December 2014, OLAF's press releases have been included on the sitescope of administrative measureresons for administrative measureIrregularities reporting + Other: The guide contains: the legal framework for the fight against corruption; the system for detecting and combating corruption (missions of the SCPC and the operational organisation of the TRACFIN reformed by Order No 2009-104 of 30 January 2009 transposing into French law the third European Directive on the fight against money laundering and terrorist financing, anonymised description of the types of dossier handled by TRACFIN and presentation of some recent case law in the field of corruption and trading in influence.EXPENDITURE - Most important anti-fraud measures adopted by Member States in 2014 under Article 325 TFEUMember StateMeasureTitle and description of measureDOMAINSinglePackageNew measure or UpdatedateHorizontal measure (H)Sectoral measureADMINISTRATIVE MEASUREHTo enhance existing measure + Other: Incorporate the changes resulting from the Law of 6 December 2013 (stricter penalties and creation of protection for whistle-blowers) – A reminder of the mechanisms for detecting and combating corruption (SCPC: centralisation of information, notifying the administrative authorities and assisting the judicial authority, training … TRACFIN: gathers, analyses and uses intelligence in order to establish whether an operation is criminal, obligation of professionals to be vigilant, indicators of vigilance, procedure for reporting suspicions). 
 
 
 
 
32 

Public procurementFinancial crimeOrganised crimeCorruptionConflict of interestFraud definitionWhistle-blowersAFCOSOthertype of act within  measurexNew measureOther: Strategy with accompanied Action plantype of act within  measurexNew measureCirculaire/circular, Instructions, Guidelines, ManualsxNew measure30.05.2014Specify type of measure (legislative, administrative, operational and/or organisational)Other: The Guidelines are targeted at development of coherent practice in application of legal framework and further clarifications for handling fraud cases within projects financed from EU SF operational programmes 2007-2013.The Guidelines describe the methodology for comprehensive process of irregularity management, particularly for detection, examination, recording and reporting of irregularities and provide with the more detailed instructions for activities of irregularity management process and examples of the cases thereof.HRM2GUIDELINES ON MANAGEMENT OF IRREGULARITIES AND FRAUD IN THE CONTEXT OF STRUCTURAL FUNDS PROGRAMMES FOR THE PERIOD 2007-20131ADMINISTRATIVE MEASUREHscope of administrative measureresons for administrative measureOther: The purpose of the Strategy is to ensure effective and efficient protection of the EU financial interests by strengthening the AFCOS system in the Republic of Croatia, by carrying out predefined measures and achievement of the set objectives.The Strategy describes the actual situation and defines objectives and measures to be taken in areas related to prevention, detection, treatment, reporting and follow-up of irregularities and fraud.Other: The reasons of the administrative measure (Strategy) are to ensure an efficient and effective protection of the EU financial interests via the definition of objectives and measures defined on the basis of the established AFCOS system weaknesses.HRM1NATIONAL ANTI-FRAUD STRATEGY IN THE FIELD OF PROTECTION OF EU FINANCIAL INTERESTS FOR THE PERIOD 2014-2016EXPENDITURE - Most important anti-fraud measures adopted by Member States in 2014 under Article 325 TFEUMember StateMeasureTitle and description of measureDOMAINSinglePackageNew measure or UpdatedateHorizontal measure (H)Sectoral measureORGANISATIONAL MEASUREHscope of organisational measureexpected results in terms of resources Other: The scope of the measure concerns strengthening management and control structures. In particular, ex ante checking of the condition of absence of causes of incompatibility and/or conflicts of interest guarantees that the staff of the Audit Authority are not led into collusive practices vis-à-vis persons involved in the management of the Structural Funds and the EMFF (management structures and beneficiaries) who might act or behave fraudulently.Neutral on resourcesITM1The measure concerns the prevention of conflicts of interest of staff of the Audit Authority and the assessment of the threshold by the MEF-DRGS-IGRUE for issuing the opinion on the designation of the audit. The notes IGRUE n. 47832 of 30.5.2014 and no. 56513 of 07/03/2014  indicate, inter alia, what aspects will be subject to checks before the opinion can be issued attesting that the Audit Authority complies with this requirement, and what procedure is to be followed by MEF-DRGS-IGRUE to carry out checks prior to issuing the opinion on the appointment.11ADMINISTRATIVE MEASUREHscope of administrative measureresons for administrative measureIrregularities reporting 
 
 
 
 
33 

Public procurementFinancial crimeOrganised crimeCorruptionConflict of interestFraud definitionWhistle-blowersAFCOSOtherIf other please specifyxNew measure14.05.2014xbrief description of the  measureAmendmentThe new law extends the far-reaching powers already available to the Special Foreign Exchange Police Unit also to the Special Unit for Public Spending and Combating EU Fraud, and the scope in which the latter unit can act is also extended, i.e. all the inspection activities concerning the protection of the budgets of the EU, the Government, the Regions and local authorities.30.10.2014Update25.11.2014xUpdate01.01.2014Update01.01.2014Targeting of investigations + Other: Improvement of anti-fraud activity carried out by the Guardia di Finanza, both directly through the work of the Special Unit for Public Spending and Combating EU Fraud and through the possibility of delegating controls to the various tax police units.ITM3Extension of foreign exchange policing powers to the Guardia di Finanza’s Special Unit for Public Spending and Combating EU Fraud for the purposes of controlling payments from the budgets of the EU, the Government, the Regions and local authorities.OPERATIONAL MEASURECohesion Policyscope of operational measureexpected results of operational measureIT tools (“IT data feeding”, “Other IT”);Web reporting/Hotline;Flagging practice;Increased number of checks;Enhanced cooperation;Enhanced information flow;Other: To allow the various actors responsible for control activities to simplify the reporting of differing assessments also to the benefit of Project Officers, supporting them as much as possible in the overall management of projects and in sharing response efforts with the Managing Authority.ITM2Stepping up monitoring and control of critical issues of the project with the introduction of a new computer system for reporting at the Ministry of Education, Universities and Research (MIUR) (16 May 2014). The system introduces new procedures in the control process which is characterised by the parallels between the activities carried out by the actors involved. The information available on the system helps Project Officers to keep to deadlines, improves communication between actors and makes it possible to flag up problems encountered in order to share appropriate response efforts.111Further monitoring of EU funding in the agri-food sector with risk analysis, planning on a regional/provincial basis and on measures with a higher incidence of fraud and irregularitiesORGANISATIONAL MEASUREAgriculture / Fisheries scope of organisational measureexpected results in terms of resources Inter- agency cooperation;General trainings;Fraud awareness trainings;Simplification of procedures;Neutral on resourcesOPERATIONAL MEASUREscope of operational measureexpected results of operational measureIT tools (“IT data feeding”, “Other IT”);Web reporting/Hotline; Risk indicators;Increased number of checks;Structured cooperation with law enforcement;Structured cooperation with judicial authoritiesEnhanced coordination;Enhanced cooperation;Enhanced information flow;Targeting of checks;Targeting of investigations;ITM4Monitoring of EU funding in the agri-food sector by the Carabinieri for Food and Agricultural Policy1111EXPENDITURE - Most important anti-fraud measures adopted by Member States in 2014 under Article 325 TFEUSpecify type of measure (legislative, administrative, operational and/or organisational)1Protection of the financial interests of the European Union.LEGISLATIVE MEASUREAgriculture / Fisheries / Cohesion Policyscope of legislationreasons for legislative measuresCompetence;PowersTo clarify or consolidate existing rules;To enforce the rules in line with developments in EU lawOPERATIONAL MEASUREscope of operational measureexpected results of operational measureStructured cooperation with law enforcementMember StateMeasureTitle and description of measureDOMAINSinglePackageNew measure or UpdatedateHorizontal measure (H)Sectoral measure 
 
 
 
 
34 

Public procurementFinancial crimeOrganised crimeCorruptionConflict of interestFraud definitionWhistle-blowersAFCOSOtherxtype of act within measureUpdate Other: The three-year plan is being implemented through a series of administrative acts and Decisions of the Regional ExecutiveUpdate 27.01.2014Update 27.01.2014xbrief description of the  measureAmendmentOn 1 September 2013, amendments to the Latvian Administration Violations Code came into force. Since 2014 the Procurement Monitoring Bureau (PMB) has been imposing administrative penalties regarding violations of public procurement, public private partnership. It increase the liability of contracting authority officials for non-fulfilment of regulatory enactments of public procurement and public-private partnership and procurement documents.25.04.2013type of act within measureNew measure / UpdateOther: - Decision, Resolution on violations of procedures in public procurement and public-private partnership. - If necesary Recommendation to the beneficieary (the contracting authority) to make the amendments in the procurement procedure documentation or revaluate the tender, in order to correct the infringements of the public procurement regulations found by the PMB during pre-examination (ex-ante control).01.01.2014Specify type of measure (legislative, administrative, operational and/or organisational)ITM5Three-year plan for the prevention of corruption (PTPC) for the period 2013-2016, approved by Decision of the Regional Executive of Emila Romagna No 66 of 27 January 2014.1111ADMINISTRATIVE MEASUREHscope of administrative measureresons for administrative measureOther: Implementation of national Law No 190/2012: ‘Rules for preventing and combating corruption and irregularities in public administration’To clarify or consolidate existing rules; To enhance existing measure; Cross-cutting measure, multi-agency measure/ measure with impact on various bodies;ORGANISATIONAL MEASUREscope of organisational measureexpected results in terms of resources Competence; Inter- agency cooperation; General trainings;Neutral on resourcesOPERATIONAL MEASUREscope of operational measureexpected results of operational measureWeb reporting/Hotline; Risk indicators; Increased number of checks;Enhanced coordination;Enhanced cooperation;Enhanced information flow;Targeting of checks;Enhanced ex-ante controls;Enhanced ex-post controls;LEGISLATIVE MEASUREHscope of legislationreasons for legislative measuresFinancial penalties;Other administrative penaltiesTo remedy flawsADMINISTRATIVE MEASUREscope of administrative measureresons for administrative measureMonitoring/desk checks;Penalty;Recovery;To clarify or consolidate existing rules;To enhance existing measure;LVM1The Amendments to the Latvian Administrative Violations Code entered into force on 1 September 2013. Since 2014 the Procurement Monitoring Bureau(PMB) has been imposing administrative penalties regarding violations of procedures in public procurement, PPP. According to the Law on Management of EU Structural Funds and the CF the PMB ensures selective ex-ante control of procurement procedures in order to evaluate if the documentation, process is in compliance with the national laws on public procurement, EU Directives and the jurisprudence of the ECJ thus reducing the risk of irregular payments.11EXPENDITURE - Most important anti-fraud measures adopted by Member States in 2014 under Article 325 TFEUMember StateMeasureHorizontal measure (H)Sectoral measureTitle and description of measureDOMAINSinglePackageNew measure or Updatedate 
 
 
 
 
35 

Public procurementFinancial crimeOrganised crimeCorruptionConflict of interestFraud definitionWhistle-blowersAFCOSOtherIf other please specifyxbrief description of the  measureAmendmentThere have been several unrelated legislative amendments adopted in the Law on Prevention of Conflict of Interest in Activities of Public Officials, the Criminal Law and the Criminal Procedure Law with the objective to have more explicit and effective regulation concerning liability of publicofficials and legal persons. Inter-institutional working group established to elaborate 'whistle-blowers’ protection regulation.30.10.2014brief description of the  measurexAmendmentThe amendments clarify the obligations of the audited entity or its supervising entity and the steps to be taken after finding a breach of law within its actions. The amendments prescribe that the audited entity, its supervising entity or responsible key officials are obliged to inform the State Audit Office (SAO) of Latvia about the results of the assessment of responsibility of officials within a time period of 5 months after the SAO has announced a decree on the audit report.13.03.2014LVAdditional measureSpecify type of measure (legislative, administrative, operational and/or organisational)11The Amendments to the Law on Prevention of Conflict of Interest in Activities of Public Officials stipulate to abolish the exception for MPs to enter into contract with state institutions; Scope of public officials in the Criminal Law has been extended, legal framework concerning liability of legal persons was improved and adjudicating offences of public officials holding managerial positions; Inter-institutional working group established to elaborate whistle-blowers’ protection regulation.LEGISLATIVE MEASUREHscope of legislationreasons for legislative measuresDefinition of a specific topicTo clarify or consolidate existing rules; Other: Following the recommendation of the Council of Europe Group of States against Corruption and in order to comply with the requirements of the OECD Convention on Combating Bribery of Foreign Public Officials in International Business Transactions.LVM2All the measures are legislative contributing to more efficient application of legal framework stipulating criminal liability for public officials and applying coercive measures to legal persons; The Amendments to the Law on Prevention of Conflict of Interest in Activities of Public Officials,publication reference LV, 228 (5288), 15.11.2014., OP: 2014/228.8; the Amendments to the Criminal Law, publication reference LV, 105 (5165), 31.05.2014., OP 2014/105.2.111Management and controlLEGISLATIVE MEASUREHThe Amendments to the Law On Prevention of Squandering of the Financial Resources and Property of a Public Person clarify the rules to which the audited entity is obliged to comply with.MeasureTitle and description of measureDOMAINSinglePackageNew measure or UpdatedateHorizontal measure (H)Sectoral measureRegarding the next planning period of 2014-2020 in the area of Agricultural and Fisheries Funds Regulations № 598 of the Cabinet of Ministers, adopted on 30 September, 2014 “Regulation on allocation, administration and monitoring of the State and European Union support for rural and fisheries development in 2014-2020 programming period.” In cases of nonconformity and infringements, application of financial corrections is envisaged to projects supported within open calls for projects for the State and European Union support and for compensatory payments  of rural and fisheries development measures. The Managing Authority for EU Structural Funds and Cohesion Fund has taken single administrative measure in 2014 in the domain of public procurement, conflict of interest and fraud definition. It includes updating a number of guidelines and methodologies that focuses on the strengthening of supervision of EU funded projects and protection of EU financial interests, for example Guidelines of Managing Authority No10.10 on Making Financial Corrections in Projects Financed from the European Union Funds, by integrating  those conditions of guidelines of the European Commission of 19 December 2013 for determining financial corrections  to be made to expenditure for non-compliance with the rules on public procurement, as well as adding a reference to OLAF Working Group 2013 on theguidelines for   identifying conflicts of interests in public procurement procedures for structural actions. The organisational measures taken in 2014 concerning competence, inter-agency cooperation, general trainings and fraud awareness training: Bilateral trainings organized by the Managing Authority  for EU Structural Funds and Cohesion Fund between institutions involved in the EU funds administration and law enforcement authorities for the purpose to strengthen capacity and cooperation with law enforcement authorities, to improve the knowledge and understanding of the fraud  investigation process, identification of conflict of interest etc. In summer of 2014, representatives from the Division of Economic Crime Investigation of the State Police participated in the conference on fraud prevention matters organizedby the Rural Support Service. Explanation was provided in person to the Prosecutor's Office, regarding administration of payments from EU funds. In the first half of 2014, a lecture was delivered to judges of administrative courts on the administration of EU funds.scope of legislationreasons for legislative measuresOther: Clarification of the obligations of the audited entity if its actionshave been found (by the State Audit Office) not to be in accordance withthe law “On Prevention of Squandering of the Financial Resources andProperty of Public Person”.To clarify or consolidate existing rulesLVM3EXPENDITURE - Most important anti-fraud measures adopted by Member States in 2014 under Article 325 TFEUMember State 
 
 
 
 
 
36 

Public procurementFinancial crimeOrganised crimeCorruptionConflict of interestFraud definitionWhistle-blowersAFCOSOtherIf other please specifybrief description of the  measurexNew legislationThe method for identifying artificially created conditions for obtaining aid lays down the criteria for identifying applicants or aid recipients who have artificially created conditions for obtaining aid under measures coming under the Lithuanian Rural Development Programme for 2014-2020.27.11.2014type of act within  measurexNew measureCirculaire/circular, Instructions, Guidelines, Manualsxbrief description of the  measureNew legislationThe authorities managing EU Structural Funds have a clear duty to establish and apply proportional anti-fraud measures, which are selected following a risk analysis.04.06.2014brief description of the  measurexNew legislationThe Lithuanian Parliament (Seimas) has adopted a Resolution adopting the Lithuanian National Anti-Corruption Programme for 2015-2025, one of the implementing actions of which is to implement anti-fraud and anti-corruption measures and actions regarding the use of EU funds.10.03.2015Specify type of measure (legislative, administrative, operational and/or organisational)1Method for identifying artificially created conditions for obtaining aid.LEGISLATIVE MEASUREAgriculture / Fisheriesscope of legislationreasons for legislative measuresDefinition of a specific topicTo clarify or consolidate existing rules; To remedy flawsLTM1Method for identifying artificially created conditions for obtaining aid.Cohesion policyscope of legislationreasons for legislative measuresCompetences;PowersTo clarify or consolidate existing rules; To enforce the rules in line with developments in EU lawLTM3Application of anti-fraud measures in administering EU Structural Funds, as required by Article 125(4)(c) of Regulation (EU) No 1303/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2013.111ADMINISTRATIVE MEASUREAgriculture / Fisheriesscope of administrative measureresons for administrative measureOther: Purchases made by aid recipients.To enhance existing measureLTM2Publication of purchases by project promoters on the website of the National Paying Agency under the Ministry of Agriculture (hereinafter ‘NPA’) (the project management authority). Conditions and requirements have been established for publishing purchases on the NPA website (www.nma.lt) that are not required to be published under the relevant legislation. This ensures that EU funds are used rationally and that procurement is transparent.1EXPENDITURE - Most important anti-fraud measures adopted by Member States in 2014 under Article 325 TFEULEGISLATIVE MEASURECustoms / Tax fraud / Agriculture / Fisheries / Cohesion policy / scope of legislationreasons for legislative measuresCompetences;To enforce the rules in line with developments in EU lawLTM4The Lithuanian National Anti-Corruption Programme for 2015-2025 has been adopted.1111Anti-fraud measures will cover all of the above areas. Specific measures will be selected in the light of the specific risks identified.LEGISLATIVE MEASUREMember StateMeasureTitle and description of measureDOMAINSinglePackageNew measure or UpdatedateHorizontal measure (H)Sectoral measure1One of the implementing actions under the National Anti-Corruption Programme is to implement anti-fraud and anti-corruption measures and actions regarding the use of EU funds. Specific measures will be identified in the light of the results of a risk analysis. 
 
 
 
 
37 

Public procurementFinancial crimeOrganised crimeCorruptionConflict of interestFraud definitionWhistle-blowersAFCOSOthertype of act within  measurexUpdateRecommendationxUpdate01.01.2014xtype of act within  measureUpdateCirculaire/circular, Instructions, Guidelines, Manuals01.01.2014Update01.01.2014xUpdate01.01.2014Specify type of measure (legislative, administrative, operational and/or organisational)ADMINISTRATIVE MEASURECohesion policyscope of administrative measureresons for administrative measureMonitoring/desk checks:Audit checklistTo enhance existing measureLUM1Area: Public procurement. Better monitoring, control and documentation of public contracts submitted by beneficiaries.1OPERATIONAL MEASUREHscope of operational measureexpected results of operational measureStructured cooperation with law enforcementEnhanced cooperationHUM1Contacts and exchange of information in order to improve cooperation among bodies and authorities involved in auditing EU aid, and making 'operative' cooperation (in individual cases) more effective1ADMINISTRATIVE MEASUREHscope of administrative measureresons for administrative measureOther: To facilitate the application of the law, the Public Procurement Authority (PPA) issues guidelines providing practical information for the entities involved in public procurement procedures, and updates them on a regular basis to reflect any changes. The guidelines are available via the official portal of the PPA.To enhance existing measureOPERATIONAL MEASUREscope of operational measureexpected results of operational measureIT tools (“IT data feeding”, “Other IT”);Enhanced information flow;Enhanced ex-ante controls;Enhanced ex-post controls;HUM2Activities of the Public Procurement Authority (PPA) to support effective implementation of public procurement law (issuing guidelines, continuously improving the IT system/portal)1OPERATIONAL MEASUREHscope of operational measureexpected results of operational measureIT tools (“IT data feeding”, “Other IT”);Other: Activities of the Public Procurement Authority that are aimed at combating corruption in public procurement: information, organising training courses for the entities concerned, activities intended to increase transparency (e.g. keeping a register of recognised suppliers, keeping a list of banned suppliers, introducing codes of ethics)Enhanced cooperation;Enhanced information flowHUM3Activities of the Public Procurement Authority that are aimed at combating corruption in public procurement (information, training, activities intended to increase transparency)1EXPENDITURE - Most important anti-fraud measures adopted by Member States in 2014 under Article 325 TFEUMember StateMeasureTitle and description of measureDOMAINSinglePackageNew measure or UpdatedateHorizontal measure (H)Sectoral measure 
 
 
 
 
38 

Public procurementFinancial crimeOrganised crimeCorruptionConflict of interestFraud definitionWhistle-blowersAFCOSOtherIf other please specifyxbrief description of the  measureNew legislationEnsuring correct and efficient use of aid from certain EU funds in the 2014-2020 programming period, adopting anti-fraud measures applying to the institutions concerned and laying down the duties of the actors involved in applying such measures.05.11.2014New measure23.07.2014New measure12.05.2014xNew measure30.11.2014xNew measure30.09.2014brief description of the  measurexNew legislation + AmendmentTo amend and consolidate the Penal Laws and the Laws of Criminal Procedure.01.08.2014Specify type of measure (legislative, administrative, operational and/or organisational)EXPENDITURE - Most important anti-fraud measures adopted by Member States in 2014 under Article 325 TFEUMember StateMeasureTitle and description of measureDOMAINSinglePackageNew measure or UpdatedateHorizontal measure (H)Sectoral measureHUM4Government Decree No 272/2014 of 5 November 2014 on the rules for the use of aid from certain EU funds in the 2014-2020 programming period, adoption of anti-fraud measures, definition of the duties of the different institutions11111Government Decree No 272/2014 of 5 November 2014 laid down the anti-fraud measures applying to the institutions involved in aid policy, in accordance with Article 125(4) of Regulation (EU) No 1303/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council.LEGISLATIVE MEASUREAgriculture / Fisheries / Cohesion policyscope of legislationreasons for legislative measuresCompetences;Powers;Definition of a specific topic;RecoveryTo remedy flaws;To enforce the rules in line with developments in EU lawORGANISATIONAL MEASUREscope of organisational measureexpected results in terms of resources Reorganisation of existing bodies;General trainings;Fraud awareness trainingsIncreased resourcesOPERATIONAL MEASUREscope of operational measureexpected results of operational measureIT tools (“IT data feeding”, “Other IT”)Enhanced information flow;Targeting of checks;Enhanced ex-ante controlsOPERATIONAL MEASUREHscope of operational measureexpected results of operational measureOther: Opinions and measures issued by the public prosecutor's offices handling cases involving criminal offences affecting the financial interests of the European CommunitiesOther: Uniform practices in applying the law in such cases, and more effective proceduresHUM5Circular No 5/2014 of 30 November 2014 of the Prosecutor-General on the procedure for criminal offences affecting the financial interests of the European Communities1LEGISLATIVE MEASUREHIncrease in the punishment related to offences listed under Article 308 (Obtaining money or property by false pretences), Article 309 (Other cases of fraudulent gain) and Article 310 (Scale of punishment according to the amount of the damage); amendment of Article 310A (Corporate liability for offences under this sub-title); addition of new Article in the Code re new offence contemplated under 310BA (Possession, making or supplying etc., of articles for use in fraud).11OPERATIONAL MEASUREHscope of operational measureexpected results of operational measureRisk indicators;Structured cooperation with law enforcement;Structured cooperation with judicial authoritiesEnhanced coordination;Enhanced cooperation;Enhanced information flow;Targeting of investigations;Enhanced ex-ante controls;Enhanced ex-post controls;MTM1Manual on the Financial Investigative Function and Operations of the Internal Audit and Investigations Department (IAID). The main objective of the Financial Investigations Unit within IAID is to protect the financial interest of the Government of Malta and of the EU, thus including Malta's obligations under bilateral, multilateral and other international agreements/arrangementsagainst irregularities and fraud. The said manual is still draft but at a very advanced stage.scope of legislationreasons for legislative measuresFinancial penalties;Other administrative penalties;Criminal sanctions (more)To clarify or consolidate existing rulesMTM2 
 
 
 
 
39 

Public procurementFinancial crimeOrganised crimeCorruptionConflict of interestFraud definitionWhistle-blowersAFCOSOtherIf other please specifyxNew measure14.12.2014type of act within  measurexNew measureOther: In general, there is a central risk assessment procedure for the entire management and control system to establish the actual fraud risks, so as to prevent and detect fraud.xUpdate02.01.2014type of act within measurexUpdateDecision, ResolutionSpecify type of measure (legislative, administrative, operational and/or organisational)Member StateMeasureTitle and description of measureDOMAINSinglePackageNew measure or UpdatedateHorizontal measure (H)Sectoral measureEXPENDITURE - Most important anti-fraud measures adopted by Member States in 2014 under Article 325 TFEUAgricultureReorganisation of existing bodiesATM2not specified1Fraud - irregularity reporting: checks and controls in IMS and  procedural requirements for the staffADMINISTRATIVE MEASUREscope of administrative measurereasons for administrative measureCohesion PolicyManagement of funds;On the spot checks;Irregularities reporting;RecoveryCross-cutting measure: Procedural requirements under national rules on eligibility as well as management and control system targets should increase efficiency. Standardised forms (checklists) raise the quality of statements submitted. Standardised forms have also been developed for calculating personnel costs, making for greater transparency and comprehensibility. Other: Monitoring and ensuring correct management of resources and reporting of any irregularities established.ATM1not specified1ORGANISATIONAL MEASUREscope of organisational measureexpected results in terms of resources Neutral on resourcesNLM2Pursuant to Article 125(4)(c) of Regulation (EU) No 1303/2003, the managing authorities (MAs) have implemented proportionate anti-fraud measures in their management and control system. The MAs will aim to control the risk of fraud (and combat fraud) by means of a proactive, structured and targeted approach using all the available anti-fraud measures for the four main elements in the anti-fraud cycle: prevention, detection, correction and recovery.1Generally, the management and control system used by European Regional Development Fund MAs.ADMINISTRATIVE MEASURECohesion policyscope of administrative measureresons for administrative measureManagement of funds;Monitoring/desk checks;On the spot checksOther: Pursuant to Article 72(h) of Regulation (EU) No 1303/2013.1The measures do not apply to one particular domain. It concerns new procedures for establishing the eligibility of the declared costs, using as much information as possible (such as Schools Inspectorate reports).OPERATIONAL MEASURECohesion policyscope of operational measureexpected results of operational measureIncreased number of checks;Other: Through the regular comparison of personal identification numbers it can be detected whether participants in several projects are declaring costs for the same activities. By taking into consideration reports by the Schools Inspectorate it can be established whether training courses meet the requirements for quality. This determines the eligibility of the declared costs.Enhanced ex-post controls;Other (not specified)NLM1This concerns the regular comparison of personal identification numbers (Burger Service Nummer - BSN). The verification also includes reports by supervisors of the Schools Inspectorate, which means that as much information as possible is available. 
 
 
 
 
40 

Public procurementFinancial crimeOrganised crimeCorruptionConflict of interestFraud definitionWhistle-blowersAFCOSOtherIf other please specifytype of act within  measurexNew measureDecision, Resolutiontype of act within  measurexUpdateCirculaire/circular, Instructions, Guidelines, Manualsbrief description of the  measurexNew legislationIt requires the setting-up of a system for preventing and combating fraudulent practices by creating a database containing information on the suitability of the aid beneficiaries.. If they have been found guilty in criminal proceedings for acts involving ESIF resources, they are barred from access to public funding for three years.27.10.2014Specify type of measure (legislative, administrative, operational and/or organisational)Sectoral measureEXPENDITURE - Most important anti-fraud measures adopted by Member States in 2014 under Article 325 TFEUMember StateMeasureTitle and description of measureDOMAINSinglePackageNew measure or UpdatedateHorizontal measure (H)PTM1Following the approval of the governance model for the European Structural and Investment Funds (ESIF) for 2014-2020 (Decree-Law No 137/2014 of 12 September 2014), the General Rules for applying the operational programmes (OP) and the Rural Development Programmes (RDP) financed by the ESIF were established.1Portuguese legislation on the management and control system of the ESIF for the 2014-2020 programming period. The ESIF include the ERDF, ESF, CF, EAFRD and EMFF.LEGISLATIVE MEASUREAgriculture / Fisheries / Cohesion policyscope of legislationreasons for legislative measuresCompetences;PowersTo enforce the rules in line with developments in EU lawPLM3Guideline No 94/1/2014 of the Minister for Agriculture and Rural Development dated 15 April 2014 on the use by Provincial Governments performing the tasks of Managing Authorities under the Rural Development Programme for 2007-2013 of procedures relating to the processing of applications for the granting of aid for small scale projects under Action 413 Implementation of local development projects.1Change in the rules for verifying applications for aid under Action 413 RDP:- introduction of a requirement to carry out a check on the applicant's partners and related entities and on the amount of aid already taken up by them - clarification of the procedure for verifying tenders, in order to eliminate the risk of deception in the course of tender procedures or of tender prices being inflated by entities linked to the applicant either personally or through an equity stake  - clarification of the rules for conducting cross-checks on small-scale projects with operations carried out within the framework of the National Rural Network ADMINISTRATIVE MEASUREAgriculturescope of administrative measureresons for administrative measureManagement of funds;Monitoring/desk checksOther : Tightening-up of the process for carrying out administrative checks on aid applications. Ensuring effective protection of the EU's financial interests, particularly with a view to preventing undue payments, by putting in place appropriate mechanisms in the administrative checking process for aid applications.PLM1Decision No 3/2014 of the Chair of the Inter-departmental Group on Combating Fraud liable to damage the Financial Interests of the Republic of Poland or the European Union dated 7 November 2014 setting up a working group combating fraud in cohesion policy funds.1Combating fraud in projects co-financed by EU cohesion policy funds. ADMINISTRATIVE MEASURECohesion policyscope of administrative measureresons for administrative measureManagement of funds;InvestigationCross-cutting measure, multi-agency measure/ measure with impact on various bodies: Poland has identified barriers to cooperation between the cohesion policy implementation institutions and the investigative authorities. Those barriers are of a legal, administrative or operational nature. Also represented in the working group, therefore, will be the law enforcement authorities, the services and departments overseeing them and the departments responsible for the operation of management and control systems.Other: Within the working group, the entities that created it would like to have rules drawn up for the efficient exchange of information between the cohesion policy implementation institutions and the investigative authorities on suspected fraud, for cooperation in the event of fraud, and for consultation on fraud prevention mechanisms. In the long term, these actions will be part of the policy on combating fraud in Poland. 
 
 
 
 
41 

Public procurementFinancial crimeOrganised crimeCorruptionConflict of interestFraud definitionWhistle-blowersAFCOSOtherxNew measure01.01.2015xNew measure / Update31.12.2014xtype of act within  measureUpdateCirculaire/circular, Instructions, Guidelines, ManualsUpdate31.12.2014Specify type of measure (legislative, administrative, operational and/or organisational)EXPENDITURE - Most important anti-fraud measures adopted by Member States in 2014 under Article 325 TFEUMember StateMeasureTitle and description of measureDOMAINSinglePackageNew measure or UpdatedateHorizontal measure (H)Sectoral measurePTM5Over the course of 2014, IFAP drafted legislation on the process of identifying risk situations, or greater risk of fraud, and revised and amended the existing provisions on the procedure applicable in cases of complaints or suspicions of intentional non-compliance.1111ADMINISTRATIVE MEASUREAgriculture / Fisheriesscope of administrative measureresons for administrative measureIrregularities reporting;Penalty;RecoveryTo clarify or consolidate existing rules;To enhance existing measureOPERATIONAL MEASUREscope of operational measureexpected results of operational measureFlagging practice;Risk indicators;Structured cooperation with law enforcement;Structured cooperation with judicial authoritiesEnhanced cooperation;Enhanced information flow;Targeting of checks;Targeting of investigations;PTM4Over the course of 2014, the Audit (Inspectorate-General of Finance) and Certifying (Development and Cohesion Agency) Authorities strengthened the procedures involved in auditing and certifying expenditure. This entailed checking the procedures in force to ensure that the Management Authorities monitor, prevent, detect and correct any instances of irregularity, fraud, conflicts of interest, etc. Wherever applicable, recommendations for improvement were made, which will be monitored over the course of the following year.111OPERATIONAL MEASURECohesion policyscope of operational measureexpected results of operational measureFlagging practice;Risk indicators;Increased number of checks;Structured cooperation with law enforcementEnhanced coordination;Enhanced information flow;Targeting of checks;Targeting of investigations;Enhanced ex-ante controls;Enhanced ex-post controlsPTM2Seminars organised by the Audit Authority and the Agency for Development and Cohesion in May and October 2014 (both held in Lisbon) with the participation of the Commission. The objective was to improve the quality of expenditure at the end of the 2007-2013 programming period  and to set up efficient systems for the prevention and detection of errors and fraud in the  2014-2020 programming period. Anti-fraud seminar, organised by IFAP in collaboration with DG AGRI (held in Lisbon) in November 2014 which dealt with situations that may point to fraud involving Community funds.111111OPERATIONAL MEASUREAgriculture / Fisheries / Cohesion policyscope of operational measureexpected results of operational measureFlagging practice;Risk indicators;Increased number of checks;Structured cooperation with law enforcementEnhanced coordination;Enhanced cooperation;Enhanced information flow;Targeting of checks;Targeting of investigations;Enhanced ex-ante controls;Enhanced ex-post controls 
 
 
 
 
42 

Public procurementFinancial crimeOrganised crimeCorruptionConflict of interestFraud definitionWhistle-blowersAFCOSOtherbrief description of the  measurexNew legislation / Aaligning national legislation with EU Recommendation - C(2013) 9527 final COMMISSION DECISION of 19.12.2013 on the setting out and approval of the guidelines for determining financial corrections to be made by the Commission to expenditure financed by the Union under shared management, for non-compliance with the rules on public procurement26.06.2014xtype of act within measureNew measure Decision, ResolutionxNew measure 28.06.2014xNew measure01.04.2014Specify type of measure (legislative, administrative, operational and/or organisational)Member StateMeasureTitle and description of measureDOMAINSinglePackageNew measure or UpdatedateHorizontal measure (H)Sectoral measureROM1Public procurement: streamlining the public procurement, updating the implementation of proportionality principle on irregularities in public procurement from European funds, preparing the Public Procurement Strategy for MFF 2014-2020, strengthening crime prevention in publicprocurement, strengthening AFCOS coordination of national measures to identify risks in public procurement in MFF 2014-2020.11LEGISLATIVE MEASUREAgriculture / Fisheries / Cohesion policyscope of legislationreasons for legislative measuresOther: implementation of financial corrections in case of irregularities inpublic procurement from European fundsTo enforce the rules in line with developments in EU lawADMINISTRATIVE MEASUREscope of administrative measureresons for administrative measureManagement of funds;Other: new Public Procurement National StrategyCross-cutting measure, multi-agency measure/ measure with impact on various bodies: Establishing Interministerial Group in order to set up a new Public Procurement Strategy in line with EU Directives on Public Procurement or other Public Policies in this matter. This measure is targeting all public institutions managing EU funds.ORGANISATIONAL MEASUREscope of organisational measureexpected results in terms of resources Simplification of proceduresOther: By Government Emergency Ordinance No. 51/2014, was set up a good conduct guarantee in order to diminish the possibility of losing the EU financial assistance due to abusive complaints on public procurement proceduresOPERATIONAL MEASUREscope of operational measureexpected results of operational measureIT tools ("IT data feeding", "Other IT");Flagging practice;Risk indicators;Structured cooperation with law enforcementEnhanced coordination;Enhanced cooperation;Targeting of checks;Targeting of investigations;Other: preparing the necessary framework for a proper implementation of the mandatory preventive anti-fraud measures for MFF 2014-2020EXPENDITURE - Most important anti-fraud measures adopted by Member States in 2014 under Article 325 TFEU 
 
 
 
 
43 

Public procurementFinancial crimeOrganised crimeCorruptionConflict of interestFraud definitionWhistle-blowersAFCOSOtherxbrief description of the  measureNew legislationincriminating bid - rigging behaviour, or adapting the definition of corruption on Romanian state of play and complying them to EU trends17.07.2009type of act within measureUpdateDecision, ResolutionNew measure / Update15.07.2014xbrief description of the  measureAmendmentThe legislative measure is part of implementation rules of the new Romanian Criminal Code and alignes to EU trends on fraud definition01.02.2014New measure13.06.2014EXPENDITURE - Most important anti-fraud measures adopted by Member States in 2014 under Article 325 TFEUMember StateMeasureTitle and description of measureDOMAINSinglePackageNew measure or UpdateSpecify type of measure (legislative, administrative, operational and/or organisational)dateHorizontal measure (H)Sectoral measurescope of legislationreasons for legislative measuresDefinition of a specific topicTo clarify or consolidate existing rules;To enforce the rules in line with developments in EU lawORGANISATIONAL MEASUREscope of organisational measureexpected results in terms of resources Inter- agency cooperation;General trainingsNeutral on resourcesAgriculture / Fisheries / Cohesion policyscope of legislationreasons for legislative measuresDefinition of a specific topicTo clarify or consolidate existing rules;To enforce the rules in line with developments in EU lawADMINISTRATIVE MEASUREscope of administrative measureresons for administrative measureManagement of funds; Monitoring/desk checks; On the spot checks; Investigation; Recovery + Other: National Anticorruption Strategy 2012-2015, comprising an Action Plan and preventive measures in order to develop a proper conduct and approach of national institutions and to diminish corruption acts (including those that affect public procurement)Cross-cutting measure, multi-agency measure/ measure with impact on various bodies: National Anticorruption Strategy gathers the efforts of all national institutions for a coherent and coordinated approach of anticorruption measuresOPERATIONAL MEASUREscope of operational measureexpected results of operational measureIT tools (“IT data feeding”, “Other IT”);Flagging practice;Risk indicators;Structured cooperation with judicial authoritiesEnhanced coordination;Enhanced cooperation;Enhanced information flow;ROM3Fraud Definition: Adoption of new definitions of fraud offences against the EU's financial interests and training in the matter.11LEGISLATIVE MEASUREHROM2Corruption: adoption of new definitions of corruption offenses, including those relating to public procurement in order to align them to the existing realities of the Member State and to the European trends111LEGISLATIVE MEASURE 
 
 
 
 
44 

Public procurementFinancial crimeOrganised crimeCorruptionConflict of interestFraud definitionWhistle-blowersAFCOSOtherxbrief description of the  measureNew legislation / Amendmentthe new definition of criminal offences are forseen by new Criminal Code and its implementing rules and express the Romanian state of play01.02.2014New measure / Update10.02.2014Update15.07.2014xbrief description of the  measureNew legislation / Amedmentthe legislative measure is a part of new Criminal Code and adapts the conflict of interest criminal offence definition to the new criminal public policy of the Member State01.02.2014type of act within measureUpdateCirculaire/circular, Instructions, Guidelines, ManualsUpdate01.04.2014New measure10.10.2014Member StateMeasureTitle and description of measureDOMAINSinglePackageNew measure or UpdateSpecify type of measure (legislative, administrative, operational and/or organisational)dateHorizontal measure (H)Sectoral measureIT tools ("IT data feeding", "Other IT");Risk indicators;Structured cooperation with law enforcement;Other: National Integrity Agency is developing an IT Tool ”PREVENT”, which is an ex-ante control mechanism of conflict of interests in public procurement (including those financed from EU funds); this IT tool will issue whistleblowings to respective stakeholdersEnhanced cooperation;Enhanced information flow;Targeting of checks;Enhanced ex-ante controlsHscope of legislationreasons for legislative measuresDefinition of a specific topicTo clarify or consolidate existing rulesORGANISATIONAL MEASUREscope of legislationreasons for legislative measuresDefinition of a specific topicTo clarify or consolidate existing rulesADMINISTRATIVE MEASUREscope of administrative measureresons for administrative measureManagement of funds;To enhance existing measureORGANISATIONAL MEASUREscope of organisational measureexpected results in terms of resources Inter- agency cooperation;General trainingsNeutral on resourcesOPERATIONAL MEASUREscope of operational measureexpected results of operational measureHIT tools (“IT data feeding”, “Other IT”);Flagging practice;Risk indicators;Structured cooperation with judicial authorities;Other:enhancing recovery of criminal prejudices through data analysis onperpetrators assets and through exchanging information with similarstructures for other Member States or other international networksEnhanced coordination; Enhanced cooperation; Enhanced information flow;ROM5Conflict of interests: strengthening preventive actions or sanctions on conflict of interest11LEGISLATIVE MEASUREROM4Financial offenses (including money laundering): adoption of new definitions of financial offenses and strengthening cooperation between prosecutor's offices and Fiscal administration1LEGISLATIVE MEASUREEXPENDITURE - Most important anti-fraud measures adopted by Member States in 2014 under Article 325 TFEUscope of organisational measureexpected results in terms of resources Reorganisation of existing bodies;Inter- agency cooperation;Simplification of proceduresIncreased resourcesOPERATIONAL MEASUREscope of operational measureexpected results of operational measure 
 
 
 
 
45 

Public procurementFinancial crimeOrganised crimeCorruptionConflict of interestFraud definitionWhistle-blowersAFCOSOthertype of act within  measurexUpdateCirculaire/circular, Instructions, Guidelines, ManualsxUpdate11.11.2014EXPENDITURE - Most important anti-fraud measures adopted by Member States in 2014 under Article 325 TFEUMember StateMeasureTitle and description of measureDOMAINSectoral measurescope of administrative measureresons for administrative measureEligibility criteria;Management of funds;Monitoring/desk checks;On the spot checks;Cross-cutting measure, multi-agency measure/ measure with impact on various bodies: The monitoring institutions (managing authority's control unit, audit authority, European Commission and European Court of Auditors) have detected a type of irregularity relating to the instrument 'Development Centres of the Slovenian Economy'. To ensure proper implementation in future the managing authority has changed its instructions regarding eligible costs by abolishing reporting by sector and reintroducing mandatory documentary evidence, thus permitting 100% administrative control and more precise documentary evidence concerning the purchase of equipment. Those instructions are published on the MA's website. SIM2Certifying authority (CA): enhanced checking of achievement of operations' targets/indicators. In November 2014 a project group was designated to examine questions relating to public procurement. The managing authority ensures administrative capacity, additional jobs and training relating to public procurement. 111ORGANISATIONAL MEASUREscope of organisational measureexpected results in terms of resources Cohesion policy / Migration and AsylumCompetence;Inter- agency cooperation;General trainingsNeutral on resourcesSIM1Ministry of Finance: issue of instructions for effecting repayments of non-earmarked EU funds in 2014. AKTRP: operational measure - establishment of fraud register for rural development programme in Slovenia for 2014-2020 programming period. KPK: upgrade of IT tool to assist national bodies, general public and media, facilitating insight into public expenditure by public institutions on goods and services. SVRK: change in managing authority instructions regarding eligible costs: abolition of reporting by sector and reintroduction of mandatory documentary evidence, thus permitting 100% administrative control and more precise documentary evidence concerning the purchase of equipment.11HNew measure or UpdateSpecify type of measure (legislative, administrative, operational and/or organisational)dateHorizontal measure (H)111ADMINISTRATIVE MEASURESinglePackage 
 
 
 
 
46 

Public procurementFinancial crimeOrganised crimeCorruptionConflict of interestFraud definitionWhistle-blowersAFCOSOtherIf other please specifybrief description of the  measurexNew legislation / AmendmentThe basic changes include greater emphasis on an integrated and strategic approach to contributions, to increase the positive effect of expenditure. The changes also relate to control and management processes, with the aim of increasing transparency and restricting the scope for abuse of EU funds. The amendment linked to the control of contributions provided legislative consolidation for controls under a single piece of legislation, introducing new features such as the opportunity for an inspected entity to respond to shortcomings detected.24.10.2014brief description of the  measurexNew legislationThe aim is to provide preventive protection for employees who have played a significant role in identifying serious anti-social behaviour of which they have become aware in connection with their employment or role. Preventive protection also embodies an obligation for the authorities and employers with more than 50 employees to establish an internal control system for receiving and processing notifications of anti-social behaviour. In addition, subsequent measures have been proposed to protect employees against victimisation by employers in connection with a notification of anti-social behaviour.14.11.2014type of act within  measurexNew measureOther: Document approved under a Government Resolution which has the nature of a binding document for entities involved in implementing the ESI Funds within the scope defined in the document.EXPENDITURE - Most important anti-fraud measures adopted by Member States in 2014 under Article 325 TFEUMember StateMeasureTitle and description of measureDOMAINSinglePackageNew measure or UpdateSpecify type of measure (legislative, administrative, operational and/or organisational)dateHorizontal measure (H)Sectoral measureSKM3System for the management of the European Structural and Investment Funds for the programming period 2014–2020 of 20 November 2014.1Fraud prevention, management and controlADMINISTRATIVE MEASURECohesion policyscope of administrative measureresons for administrative measureEligibility criteria; Management of funds; Monitoring/desk checks; On the spot checks; Other: Increased transparencyTo enhance existing measure;Other: Amendment of the conditions with regard to the requirements for new EU legislation for the programming period 2014–2020, taking account of practical experience and existing implementation in Slovakia, and explanation and clarification of some existing rules.SKM2Act No 307/2014 on certain measures related to reporting of anti-social behaviour and amending certain acts entered into force on 1 January 2015.1LEGISLATIVE MEASUREHscope of legislationreasons for legislative measuresOther: The conditions for granting protection to persons in an employment relationship against victimisation in connection with reporting crime or anti-social behaviour and the rights and obligations of natural and legal persons when reporting anti-social behaviour.Other: The legislative proposal is based on proposed measures to ensure implementation of the recommendations adopted by the OECD Working Group on Bribery in International Business Transactions for Slovakia under phase 3 of the evaluation. It is also based on the requirement to create more effective legal preconditions for preventing and detecting illegal or anti-social behaviour by adopting various protective measures for persons who have information on such behaviour and wish to notify the relevant authorities and identify the perpetrators (whistleblowing).SKM1Act No 292/2014 of 17 September 2014 on the contribution received from the European Structural and Investment Funds and amending certain acts entered into force on 1 November 2014. Part of the Act amends Act No 502/2001 on financial control and internal auditing and amending certain other acts, as amended.11Fraud prevention, management and controlLEGISLATIVE MEASURECohesion policyscope of legislationreasons for legislative measuresPowers; Definition of a specific topic;Recovery; Financial penalties; Other administrative penalties; Other: Legal relationships with regard to contributions in the programming period 2014-2020, procedure and conditions for granting the contribution, the competence of authorities and responsibility for infringements of the conditions for contributions, amendment of provisions connected with monitoring the financial resources provided.To enforce the rules in line with developments in EU law; Other: Taking account of conditions in the new EU legislation for the programming period 2014-2020. 
 
 
 
 
47 

Public procurementFinancial crimeOrganised crimeCorruptionConflict of interestFraud definitionWhistle-blowersAFCOSOtherIf other please specifytype of act within  measurexNew measureOther: Document approved under a Government Resolution which has the nature of a binding document for entities involved in implementing the Structural Funds, the Cohesion Fund and the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund within the scope defined in the document.xtype of act within  measureNew legislationOther: SystemNew measure 02.07.2014New measure 02.07.2014xbrief description of the  measureNew legislationThe regulations relate e.g. to the preparation of projects and programmes to be funded from national and EU Structural Funds, management, assessment and monitoring, activities co-financed by the Structural Funds and their eligibility.17.01.2014SKM4System for the financial management of the Structural Funds, the Cohesion Fund and the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund for the programming period 2014–2020, version 1.0 of 5 November 1Financial managementADMINISTRATIVE MEASUREscope of administrative measureresons for administrative measureFisheries / Cohesion policyIrregularities reporting; Other: Financial management, financing (payments, accounts), certification, accounting, irregularities/financial correctionsOther: Amendment of the conditions with regard to the requirements for new EU legislation for the programming period 2014–2020, taking account of practical experience and existing implementation in Slovakia, and explanation and clarification of some existing rules.EXPENDITURE - Most important anti-fraud measures adopted by Member States in 2014 under Article 325 TFEUMember StateMeasureTitle and description of measureDOMAINSinglePackageNew measure or UpdateSpecify type of measure (legislative, administrative, operational and/or organisational)dateHorizontal measure (H)Sectoral measureFIM1Adoption of regulations on national implementation of the Structural Funds 2014-20201Regulations adopted on national implementation of the programming period for the Structural Funds (ERDF/ESF).LEGISLATIVE MEASUREHscope of legislationreasons for legislative measuresCompetences;RecoveryTo enforce the rules in line with developments in EU lawSKM5System for the financial management of the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development of 2 July 2014.1Management and controlADMINISTRATIVE MEASUREAgriculturescope of administrative measureresons for administrative measureManagement of funds;Irregularities reporting;Other: EAFRD budget provision, diagram of accounting procedures for EAFRD, EAFRD financing schemesOther: Specifying new rules under new EU legislation for the programming period 2014–2020.ORGANISATIONAL MEASUREscope of organisational measureexpected results in terms of resources Competence;Other: Organising procedures for the financial management of the EAFRD for the programming period 2014–2020.Neutral on resourcesOPERATIONAL MEASUREscope of operational measureexpected results of operational measureOther:Systemic cooperation by bodies and operators involved in the implementation and uptake of the EAFRD for the programming period 2014–2020.Other: Ensuring high-quality and functional processes and tools for the financial management of the EAFRD. 
 
 
 
 
48 

Public procurementFinancial crimeOrganised crimeCorruptionConflict of interestFraud definitionWhistle-blowersAFCOSOthertype of act within  measurexNew measureCirculaire/Circular, Instructions, Guidelines, ManualsxNew measure16.10.2014brief description of the  measurexAmendmentSweden has designated the Economic Crimes Authority - Ekobrottsmyndigheten  as the Swedish Anti-Fraud Coordination Service (AFCOS) pursuant to Article 3(4) of the OLAF Regulation.16.10.2014EXPENDITURE - Most important anti-fraud measures adopted by Member States in 2014 under Article 325 TFEUMember StateMeasureTitle and description of measureDOMAINSinglePackageNew measure or UpdateSpecify type of measure (legislative, administrative, operational and/or organisational)dateHorizontal measure (H)Sectoral measureSEM3On 16 October 2014 the government decided to designate the Economic Crimes Authority - Ekobrottsmyndigheten  as the Swedish Anti-Fraud Coordination Service (AFCOS). The decision was implemented by means of an amendment to the authority's instructions and entered into force on 1 January 2015.1LEGISLATIVE MEASUREHscope of legislationreasons for legislative measuresPowersTo enforce the rules in line with developments in EU lawSEM2On 16 October the Economic Crimes Authority - Ekobrottsmyndigheten organised a one-day seminar for the authorities involved, aimed at improving effectiveness when preventing, detecting, investigating and taking measures with regard to the misuse of EU funds. The seminar shed light on regulatory simplification from a number of perspectives, including from the perspective of the European Court of Auditors. Government representatives from Finland and Denmark described how they audit EU funds. Public prosecutors from the Economic Crimes Authority - Ekobrottsmyndigheten presented their work on EU fraud. The aim of the day was mainly to offer an opportunity to exchange experiences and provide inspiration.1OPERATIONAL MEASUREHscope of operational measureexpected results of operational measureOther: Structured cooperation between the Swedish authorities that are involved in various ways in managing and protecting EU funds.Enhanced coordination;Enhanced cooperation;Enhanced information flowSEM1The Swedish 'SEFI Council' [Council for the Protection of the EU's Financial Interests] (the Economic Crimes Authority - Ekobrottsmyndigheten, the Swedish Board of Agriculture - Jordbruksverket, the Väterbotten County Administrative Board - Länsstyrelsen Väterbotten, the Migration Board - Migrationsverket, the Police Authority - Polismyndigheten, the Swedish ESF Council - Svenska ESF-rådet, the Swedish Agency for Economic and Regional Growth - Tillväxtverket, the Financial Management Authority - Ekonomistyrningsverket) has approved guidelines to clarify what is meant by errors and suspected crime. The guidelines are intended to help authorities decide whether a particular act in connection with an aid application or an aid payment that is fully or partly financed from EU funds should be treated as a suspected crime. The target group is administrators and directors within the Swedish authorities who deal with EU funds.11ADMINISTRATIVE MEASUREAgriculture / Fisheries / Cohesion policy / Migration and asylumscope of administrative measureresons for administrative measureIrregularities reporting;To clarify or consolidate existing rules 
 
 
 
 
49 

Public procurementFinancial crimeOrganised crimeCorruptionConflict of interestFraud definitionWhistle-blowersAFCOSOtherIf other please specifytype of act within  measurexNew measureCirculaire/Circular, Instructions, Guidelines, ManualsxUpdate01.01.2014Update01.01.2014xNew measure01.01.2014EXPENDITURE - Most important anti-fraud measures adopted by Member States in 2014 under Article 325 TFEUMember StateMeasureTitle and description of measureDOMAINSinglePackageNew measure or UpdateSpecify type of measure (legislative, administrative, operational and/or organisational)dateHorizontal measure (H)Sectoral measureUKM2Anti Fraud Policy developed in line with requirements for the 2014-2020 Cohesion policy programmes1OPERATIONAL MEASURECohesion policyscope of operational measureexpected results of operational measureRisk indicators;Increased number of checksEnhanced coordination;Enhanced cooperation;Enhanced information flow;Enhanced ex-post controlsUKM1The United Kingdom's agricultural sector: the systems and procedures to manage potential and actual fraud undertaken under the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP)11the area refers to the UK agricultural sector. The measures referto the systems and procedures to manage potential and actual fraudundertaken under the CAPORGANISATIONAL MEASUREAgriculturescope of organisational measureexpected results in terms of resources Reorganisation of existing bodies; General trainings; Fraud awareness trainings;Other: UK paying agencies have established dedicated specialist fraud risk management teams to regularly review and, where deemed necessary, revise and enhance anti-fraud measures. The teams are supported by operational business areas and they report to respective fraud risk management steering groups. This is used to ensure that risk registers at both operational and policy levels are effectively maintained and updated as appropriate. Directors are required to attest to the performance of the required controls and anti-fraud measures.Neutral on resourcesOPERATIONAL MEASUREscope of operational measureexpected results of operational measureIncreased number of checks; Other: Revised guidance on fraud risk assessment issued to staff. Revised anti-fraud policy statement and fraud response plan issued. Fraud risk registers are regularly reviewed and updated. central Government (i.e. Cabinet Office) plans reviewed and adapted to cater for paying agencies. Engagement with other Government Departments to expand and enhance anti-fraud knowledge and share best practice.Enhanced coordination;Enhanced cooperation;Enhanced information flow;Enhanced ex-ante controlsSEM4The authorities managing the Social Fund and the Regional Fund have together undertaken a major development effort to implement simplified cost options (Articles 67 and 68 of Regulation (EU) No 1303/2013). The aim is to reduce the administrative burden on aid recipients and free up resources for a more result-oriented approach at programme and project level. Sweden considers that simple, transparent accounting rules for project owners can ultimately reduce the risk of errors, irregularities and fraud.1Sweden considers that simple, transparent accounting rules for project owners can ultimately reduce the risk of errors, irregularities and fraud.ADMINISTRATIVE MEASURECohesion policyscope of administrative measureresons for administrative measureEligibility criteriaOther: Sweden considers that simple, transparent accounting rules for project owners can ultimately reduce the risk of errors, irregularities and fraud. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
2.4. 

Structured answers of 28 Member States – measures taken in the REVENUE part of the EU budget 

50 

Public procurementFinancial crimeOrganised crimeCorruptionConflict of interestFraud definitionWhistle-blowersAFCOSOtherIf other please specifyLegislative Act - numberxAmendmentRoyal Decree of 19.03.2014 implementing art.2,§1,13,b,al2 of the Belgian Income Tax Code of1992 inserted by the Law of 30.07.201319.03.2014Tax fraudLegislative Act - numberxNew legislationRoyal Decree implementing Article 2, § 1, 13 °, b), second paragraph of the Income Tax Code1992 inserted by the Act containing various provisions of July 30, 2013.19.03.2014Tax fraudLegislative Act - numberxNew legislationRegulation No N-1, published in State Gazette No 8 of 28 January 2014, in force since 28 January 2014, issued by the Minister for Finance.22.01.2014CustomsLEGISLATIVE MEASURECompetences; Powers;Definition of a specific topic;Other: Specific requirements applying to equipment for measuring and testing excise goods, and checks performed by the customs authoritiesTo remedy flaws;Other:Laying down of:1. the specific requirements applying to equipment for measuring and testing excise goods;2. the requirements applying to the transmission of data from measuring and testing equipment to the entity's automated logging system and to the Customs Agency's information system. 3. the checks to be performed by the customs authorities on equipment for measuring and testing excise goods and on the data transmitted by such equipment.scope of legislationreasons for legislative measuresBGM5A Regulation has been issued by the Minister of Finance on the specific requirements applying to, and checks performed by the customs authorities on, equipment for measuring and testing excise goods, in implementation of the provisions set out in Article 103(2) of the Excise and Tax Warehouses Act (ZADS).  The Regulation is aimed on the one hand at decreasing the administrative burden and costs for business, and on the other at ensuring that effective controls are carried out by the customs authorities on the placement, manufacture and storage of excise goods in, and their removal from, customs warehouses and other premises. (cid:10)LEGISLATIVE MEASUREscope of legislationreasons for legislative measuresDefinition of a specific topicTo clarify or consolidate existing rules11Combating customs fraud. The Regulation creates clear rules in relation both to the equipment which must be used for measuring and checking excise goods when these are placed, manufactured or stored in, and removed from, the premises concerned, and to the checks carried out by customs authorities.REVENUE - Most important anti-fraud measures adopted by Member States in 2014 under Article 325 TFEUSpecify type of measure (legislative, administrative, operational and/or organisational)BEM1Royal Decree of 19 March of 2014, MB 02/04/2014, lists the legal arrangements which are to be declared by BE residents. This disclosure obligation targets trusts, but also non-resident companies, corporations, associations, foundations that are located in tax havens, if the legal rights to the shares are held entirely or partially by a BE resident or if the beneficiary of the economic rights to the assets and capital is a BE resident. The list is based on the list in Annex 1 of the proposed directive amending the EU Savings Tax Directive although this list is more complete.1Tax evasionLEGISLATIVE MEASUREscope of legislationreasons for legislative measuresDefinition of a specific topicTo clarify or consolidate existing rules; To enforce the rules in line with developments in EU lawMember StateMeasureTitle and description of measureDOMAINSinglePackageNew measure or UpdatedateHorizontal measure (H)Sectoral measureBEM2Royal Decree implementing Article 2§1,13° b), second paragraph of the Income Tax Code 1992 inserted by the Act containing various provisions of July 30, 2013. The new law containing various provisions of July 30, 2013 adds to article 2§1 of the Income Tax Code 1992, the definition regarding the concept of legal construction. A legal construction means, under this definition, among others, a legal relationship that is created by an act of the founder, where goods or rights are controlled by a manager, for the benefit of beneficiary or for a specific purpose.1 
 
 
 
 
51 

Public procurementFinancial crimeOrganised crimeCorruptionConflict of interestFraud definitionWhistle-blowersAFCOSOtherIf other please specifyxNew measure15.06.2014CZAdditional informationxLegislative Act - numberAmendmentthe Taxation Act.23.12.2014The main reason for setting up the team was to attempt to ensure effective and speedy exchange of information and coordination in joint police and customs operations, so that tax and customs duty evasion is promptly identified, investigated and brought to book. The joint team’s main function is to ensure that taxes and customs duties are properly collected, that amounts unlawfully received are paid back to the state budget and that offenders are prosecuted; tackling such offences involving VAT and customs evasion is done in close cooperation with the authorities of the other Member States, with particular regard to fuel imports and miscellaneous raw materials. Work towards the establishment of the 'Kobra team' was intended to ensure greater effectiveness in tackling financial crime, in particular customs duty and VAT evasion. The focus of the team's work will be the most serious forms of such crime, including organised crime committed by criminal gangs. EEM3Changes in taxation law: 1) 1 July 2014 - Employment register; 2) 1 November 2014 - VAT form 'INF' - transactions with partners exceeding EUR 1000 a month must be declared; 3) 1 December 2014 - rules governing the use of company cars were clarified. The full text of the Act can be found at: https://www.riigiteataja.ee/en/eli/523012015008/consolideCustoms / Tax fraud / Centralised direct managementscope of legislationreasons for legislative measuresCompetences;Powers;Definition of a specific topic;Recovery;Other administrative penalties;To clarify or consolidate existing rules; Other: Changes in taxation law.LEGISLATIVE MEASURE1Changes in taxation law.Customs and Tax Fraudscope of organisational measureexpected results in terms of resources Reorganisation of existing bodies;Competence;Inter- agency cooperation;Simplification of proceduresIncreased resourcesORGANISATIONAL MEASUREIn mid-2014, preparations were concluded for the establishment of a special team to tackle the most serious forms of tax and customs crime. This grouping, known as 'Kobra', has been incorporated in the existing structure of the police and customs authorities. It has been established as a permanent joint team bringing together the Corruption and Financial Crime Detection Section, the Directorate-General for Finance and the Directorate-General for Customs. The role of the team, which has a nationwide mandate and whose members are drawn in particular from the police and customs authorities, is to concentrate on the battle against tax evasion, tax offences and customs duty evasion.11Horizontal measure (H)Sectoral measureREVENUE - Most important anti-fraud measures adopted by Member States in 2014 under Article 325 TFEUMember StateMeasureTitle and description of measureDOMAINSinglePackageNew measure or UpdateSpecify type of measure (legislative, administrative, operational and/or organisational)dateCZM1 
 
 
 
 
52 

Public procurementFinancial crimeOrganised crimeCorruptionConflict of interestFraud definitionWhistle-blowersAFCOSOtherIf other please specifyType of act within measurexNew measureDecision, ResolutionLegislative Act - numberxAmendmentLaw 188(Ι) 2007-201412.12..2014Legislative Act - numberxAmendmentThe Amendment to the law "On the Convention drawn up on the basis of Article K. 3 of the EU Treaty, on mutual assistance and cooperation between customs administrations (Naples II Convention)" - publication reference LV, 131 (5191), 08.07.2014., OP: 2014/131.119.06.2014LEGISLATIVE MEASURECustomsscope of legislationreasons for legislative measuresCompetences;Powers;To clarify or consolidate existing rules; To remedy flawsADMINISTRATIVE MEASURECustomsscope of administrative measureresons for administrative measureOther: Customs control on exports of any goods, including products subject to excise, where customs control relating to the supply of ships, aircraft, diplomatic missions etc. are based on risk analysis criteria and indicated by the Customs information system.To clarify or consolidate existing rulesTax Fraudscope of legislationreasons for legislative measuresCompetences;To remedy flaws;LEGISLATIVE MEASURE1ELM4Application of risk analysis in customs controls for all goods - within the ICISnet customs information system, methodologies for carrying out targeted checks are applied in risk analysis 1CYM1AMENDED LAW 188(I) 2007 on money laundering11M4The Amendments made to the law "On the Convention drawn up on the basis of Article K.3 of the EU Treaty, on mutual assistance and cooperation between customs administrations (Naples II Convention)"REVENUE - Most important anti-fraud measures adopted by Member States in 2014 under Article 325 TFEUMember StateMeasureTitle and description of measureDOMAINSinglePackageNew measure or UpdateSpecify type of measure (legislative, administrative, operational and/or organisational)dateHorizontal measure (H)Sectoral measure11Customs controlsLV 
 
 
 
 
53 

Public procurementFinancial crimeOrganised crimeCorruptionConflict of interestFraud definitionWhistle-blowersAFCOSOtherxUpdate31.01.2013Legislative Act - numberxAmendmentRegional law/ decree/ order 1B-52106.08.2014Customsscope of legislationreasons for legislative measuresDefinition of a specific topic;Other administrative penaltiesTo clarify or consolidate existing rules11LTM5In order to avoid conflicts of public and private interests in the Customs area, the Order of the Director-General of Customs regulating restrictions on the acceptance and offering of gifts and services by Customs officers and state officials and employees and the mechanism laid down for accounting for gifts and services received has been amended. The list of Customs officials' posts for which officers are required to declare their private interests has also been amended.OPERATIONAL MEASURELVM5Work with following companies regularly carried out since 2013: with established "buffer-risks", which indicates that the mentioned companies can be involved in the transaction chain as "intermediaries" or "buffers". Within the framework is carried out work also with "missing traders"; whose declared purchases from other EU companies are larger or smaller than deliveries declared by other companies of EU countries in their country Summary statements that could be an indicator of illegally imported goods legalization in Latvia or risks of unpaid VAT in one of thecountries of the EU.LEGISLATIVE MEASUREREVENUE - Most important anti-fraud measures adopted by Member States in 2014 under Article 325 TFEUMember StateMeasureTitle and description of measureDOMAINSinglePackageNew measure or UpdateSpecify type of measure (legislative, administrative, operational and/or organisational)dateHorizontal measure (H)Sectoral measureTax fraudscope of operational measureexpected results of operational measureRisk indicatorsEnhanced information flow;Targeting of checks;Other: To exclude from the VAT registry companies that are “missing traders”and “buffers”, thus stopping the fraudulent activities of involved companies. To ensure that in relevant countries of the EU involved in transactions the VAT tax is correctly calculated and paid. In case of risk detection are sent SCAC forms.1 
 
 
 
 
54 

Public procurementFinancial crimeOrganised crimeCorruptionConflict of interestFraud definitionWhistle-blowersAFCOSOtherxNew measure01.01.2014New measure01.03.2015xNew measure01.09.2014xNew measure24.12.2013OPERATIONAL MEASURE1PLM2Guideline on "Verifying the declared customs value of  textile goods and footwear imported from Far Eastern countries (mainly from China)”Customsscope of operational measureexpected results of operational measureIncreased number of checks;Targeting of checksCustomsscope of operational measureexpected results of operational measureFlagging practice;Risk indicators;Increased number of checksTargeting of checks;Other: Reduction or elimination of the practice, employed by certain unscrupulous importers, of understating the customs value of textile goods and footwear imported from Far Eastern countries so as to have customs duties under-assessed or to avoid paying them altogether. The Guideline came into actual use as from the beginning of 2014.OPERATIONAL MEASURENLM4Intensified control on origin (certificates, declarations)1ORGANISATIONAL MEASURENLM3Anti-dumping solar panels (anti-dumping under Regulation (EU) No  1238/2013), pro-active and real time control of all imported solar panels after the antidumping was established.Customsscope of organisational measureexpected results in terms of resources Other: A dedicated team of all involved custom offices and specialist is established. The measure has a wide scope in accordence with the competences of the Customs as laid down in the Dutch General Customs Law.Increased resourcesOPERATIONAL MEASUREscope of operational measure1expected results of operational measureRisk indicators;Increased number of checksEnhanced coordination;Enhanced cooperation;Enhanced information flow;Targeting of checks;Targeting of investigations;Enhanced ex-post controlsREVENUE - Most important anti-fraud measures adopted by Member States in 2014 under Article 325 TFEUMember StateMeasureTitle and description of measureDOMAINSinglePackageNew measure or UpdateSpecify type of measure (legislative, administrative, operational and/or organisational)dateHorizontal measure (H)Sectoral measure 
 
 
 
 
55 

Public procurementFinancial crimeOrganised crimeCorruptionConflict of interestFraud definitionWhistle-blowersAFCOSOtherLegislative Act - numberxNew legislationLaw / Act Journal of Laws 2014, item 187705.12.2014Legislative Act - numberxAmendmentLaw / Act Journal of Laws 2014, item 312.07.02.2014xLegislative Act - numberxNew legislationLaw No 82-B/201431.12.2014xLegislative Act - numberNew legislationLaw on Financial Administration; Official Journal 25/ 2014  01.08.2014Update01.08.2014scope of legislationreasons for legislative measuresCompetences;PowersDefinition of a specific topicTo remedy flaws; Other: Because of the merging of the two bodies, it was necessary to adopt a legislative framework that enables the operation of a single service and well defines its functions and powers. There was on new  (newly) defined process for financial investigation that also eliminates gaps (deficiencies) in  arrangements in (from) the previous organizational laws and within the definition of a tax investigation procedure. With the new definition of investigation procedure  the process is  extended to the procedure of removal of  financial consequences of fraud.scope of organisational measureexpected results in terms of resources ORGANISATIONAL MEASURECustomsSIM3Due to organizational changes the number of inspectors has increased, which facilitates reallocation of staff (human) resources to priority areas such as fraud. In the context of the Financial Management Board are organized special departments,  responsible for the preparation of misdemeanor and criminal actions, allowing uniformity of practice and relieve (a less workload burden for inspectors) of inspectors. Due to changes in the process of financial investigation more effective actions to remedy the consequences of fraud are enabled and the faster and more effectively dealing with (proceeding) large-scale fraud.1LEGISLATIVE MEASUREReorganisation of existing bodies;CompetenciesIncreased resourcesCustomsscope of legislationreasons for legislative measuresCompetences;PowersTo clarify or consolidate existing rules; Other: It seeks to treat and punish as customs crimes cases where there are indications of organised crime or with an international dimension, or where there are qualifying circumstances in which the legal right to be protected does not relate to asset values (for example, the CITES Convention - Protection of Species).Tax fraud1LEGISLATIVE MEASURECustoms / Tax fraudscope of legislationreasons for legislative measuresOther: Specification and clarification of the rules on tobacco taxation.PTM3In criminal law, they were enshrined in the 2015 Budget Law as customs crimes with the objective of punishing the perpetrator, regardless of the value of the tax due or the value of the goods involved in the offence, wherever there are indications of organised crime or crime with an international dimension.11LEGISLATIVE MEASUREPLM5Act amending the VAT Act and other actsLEGISLATIVE MEASUREscope of legislationreasons for legislative measuresDefinition of a specific topicTo clarify or consolidate existing rules;To remedy flawsTo clarify or consolidate existing rules;To remedy flaws1REVENUE - Most important anti-fraud measures adopted by Member States in 2014 under Article 325 TFEUMember StateMeasureTitle and description of measureDOMAINSinglePackageNew measure or UpdateSpecify type of measure (legislative, administrative, operational and/or organisational)dateHorizontal measure (H)Sectoral measurePLM4Act of 5 December 2014 amending certain Acts pertaining to the implementation of the Budget Act (amending the Excise Duty Act of 6 December 2008) 
 
 
 
 
 
3.  SPECIFIC  PART  OF  THE  QUESTIONNAIRE  2014:  DEFINITIONS  USED  IN  IRREGULARITY 

REPORTING BY THE MEMBER STATES 

The  purpose  of  this  year’s  specific  part  was  to  identify  differences  among  the  Member 
States in applying the definitions relating to irregularity reporting, the timing in which the 
reporting is done and the timing of the reporting of 'suspected fraud'.  

The information collected is analysed thoroughly by OLAF, with the aim of guiding the 
Member  States  toward  a  harmonised  approach  in  the  interpretation  of  such  definitions 
and increasing the comparability of data reported by the Member States.  

3.1. 

Summary of the replies 

The purpose of this year’s specific part was to identify differences among Member States 
in  applying  the  definitions  relating  to  irregularity  reporting  (fraudulent  and  non-
fraudulent)  and  the  timing  of  the  reporting.  The  information  collected  is  analysed  by 
OLAF, with the aim of guiding the Member States toward a harmonised approach in the 
interpretation of such definitions and increasing the comparability of the data reported by 
the Member States. 

Almost  all  Member  States  made  reference  to  their  Civil  Servants  Code  or  Penal  Code 
regarding  legal  obligations  for  public  officials  to  refer  to  law  enforcement  or  a  judicial 
authority on any crime an official becomes aware of in the execution of their tasks, while 
the remaining four Member States53 have no such provision in their national legislation. 

All Member States reported the existence, and use, of guidelines on irregularity reporting; 
Twenty Member States54 provided details on which definitions are specifically included 
in their internal guidelines.  
Seven Member States55 reported the application of the definition of ‘economic operator’ 
in  line  with  the  relevant  Union  sectorial  Regulations  and  guidelines  for  their 
application56, as well as consistent with the Council Regulation on the protection of the 
Union’s  financial  interests57,  with  exception  of  a  Member  State  exercising  its 
prerogatives as a public authority.  

A  national  definition  of  the  'primary  administrative  or  judicial  finding'  (PACA),  which 
determines the timing of the reporting of irregularities, was reported by sixteen Member 
States58. The questionnaire ascertained some differences in the application of the 'primary 
administrative or judicial finding' (PACA) according to the sector and irregularity. While 
half of the  Member States  reported uniform application of the PACA in all  sectors and 
types of irregularity (fraudulent or non-fraudulent)59, uniform application for all types of 
irregularity but different applications per sector is applied in six Member States60, in two 

53  
54  

55  
56  
57  
58  

59  

60  

Denmark, Ireland, Sweden and the United Kingdom 
Belgium, Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Greece, Croatia, Italy, Cyprus, Latvia, Lithuania, Hungary, 
Malta, Netherlands, Poland, Romania, Slovenia, Slovakia, Finland and Sweden 
Belgium, Czech Republic, Estonia, Latvia, Netherlands, Poland and Romania 
Regulations (EC) Nos 1828/2006 and 1848/2006 
Article 7 of Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2988/95. 
Belgium,  Bulgaria,  Czech  Republic,  Denmark,  Estonia,  Greece,  Italy,  Cyprus,  Latvia,  Lithuania,  Hungary, 
Netherlands, Poland, Romania, Slovakia and Finland 
Bulgaria, Germany, Estonia, Ireland, Croatia, Italy, Hungary, Malta, Austria, Poland, Romania, Slovenia, Sweden 
and the United Kingdom 
Belgium, Denmark, France, Cyprus, Lithuania and Netherlands 

56 

 
 
 
 
                                                            
Member States61 there are different applications of PACA between types of irregularity 
but  uniform  application  per  sector  and  in  five  Member  States62  there  are  different 
applications per sector and per type of irregularity.  As regards the reporting of ‘suspected 
fraud’, all except two Member States63 pointed out that they do not request authorisation 
from  the  judicial  authority  before  reporting  suspected  fraud.  Eight  Member  States64  use 
the  definition  of  ‘suspected  fraud’,  as  set  out  in  EU  legislation,  in  their  national 
guidelines.  
Sixteen  Member  States65  make  explicit  reference in  national  legislation  to  fraud  against 
the EU budget, while twelve Member States66 say that their national legislation contains 
general definitions of the behaviour, without any specific reference to the ‘victim’. 
Half of the Member States67 use an internal system for signalling suspected irregularities 
outside of the Irregularity Management System (IMS), used for reporting of irregularities 
by the Member States to the Commission. Ten Member States68 rely upon IMS only and 
four Member States69 do not use internal IT systems for signalling suspected irregularities 
at all.  

There are differences in relation to the reporting of cases subject to criminal proceedings: 
eight  Member  States70  report  the  follow-up  to  the  Commission  after  indictment,  seven 
Member  States71  report  the  follow-up  after  the  initial  sentence,  fifteen  Member  States72 
say  that  they  do  so  after  the  definitive  sentence  (final  court  decision)  and  seventeen 
Member States73 specify an ‘other’ practice of follow-up reporting. 

3.2.  Legal obligation for public officials to refer to law enforcement or a judicial 
authority on any crime he/she becomes aware of in the execution of his/her 
tasks. 

The Member States were asked to specify whether there is any legal obligation for public 
officials  to  inform  a  law-enforcement  or  a  judicial  authority  about  any  crime  he/she 
becomes aware of in the execution of his/her tasks. Twenty-four Member States referred 
to  an  Article  of  their  Civil  Servants  Code  or  Penal  (Procedure)  Code  regarding  legal 
obligations for public officials to refer to law enforcement or a judicial authority on any 
crime  he/she  becomes  aware  of  in  execution  of  his/her  tasks,  while  the  remaining  four 
Member States74 answered no existence of such provision. 

The replies received are detailed in Table 4. 

61  
62  
63  
64  
65  

66  

67  

68  
69  
70  
71  
72  

73  

74  

Latvia and Slovakia 
Greece, Spain, Luxembourg, Portugal and Finland 
Italy requests authorisation systematically and Romania does so on a case-by-case basis. 
Belgium, Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Estonia, Greece, Latvia, Romania and Slovakia 
Belgium, Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Denmark, Greece, Spain, Croatia, Italy, Cyprus, Hungary, Malta, Portugal,  
Romania, Slovenia, Slovakia and Sweden 
Germany, Estonia, France, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Ireland, Austria, Poland, Finland, and the 
United Kingdom 
Belgium, Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Estonia, Spain, Croatia, Cyprus, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Hungary, 
Malta, Romania and Slovakia 
Germany, Ireland, France, Italy, Netherlands, Austria, Portugal, Slovenia, Finland and Sweden 
Denmark, Greece, Poland and the United Kingdom  
Belgium, Denmark, Germany, Greece, Latvia, Poland, Romania and Finland 
Belgium, Germany, Greece, Latvia, Austria, Romania and Finland 
Belgium, Denmark, Germany, Greece, Spain, Latvia, Luxembourg, Hungary, Malta, Austria, Poland, Romania, 
Slovenia, Slovakia and Finland 
Belgium, Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Estonia, Ireland, France, Croatia, Italy, Cyprus, Lithuania, Netherlands, 
Austria, Poland,  Portugal, Slovenia,  Sweden, United Kingdom 
Denmark, Ireland, Sweden and the United Kingdom 

57 

 
 
 
 
                                                            
Table 4: Legal obligation for public officials to refer to law enforcement or judicial authority on crimes they become aware of in the execution of 
their tasks 

58 

MSYESArticle and title of ActDate of entry into forceCommentBE1Section II The way prosecutors are supposed to act in the exercise of their function. Article 29 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Art.29 al1 Sv.) Every public official, that in the performance of his duties, learns of a crime, is obliged to immediately give notice to the public prosecutor.10.7.1967The tax officer informs the public prosecutor (Art.29 al3 Sv.) or is asked to organize a concertation in the context of the law Una Via. No direct cooperation is possible between the tax and the criminal authorities (Charter of the Tax Payer, Aug. 1986); without prejudice of the general competence of criminal investigation and prosecution of the Customs and Excise Administration as for customs duties, offenses regarding the traffic of legally prohibited or restricted goods at import, export, and transit, and in excise procedures.BG1Art. 205, par. 2, Penal Procedure Code29.4.2006When a public official becomes aware of a crime (which is considered at that stage as a suspicion of fraud) they must notify immediately the pre-trial procedure authority.CZ1Section 8(1) of Act No 141/1961 on criminal procedure (the Code of Criminal Procedure): 'The state authorities shall without delay report to the public prosecutor or to the police authorities any facts indicating that a criminal act has been committed.'1.9.1995The reporting requirement is laid down in Section 25(4) of Act No 255/2012 on audits (the Audit Regulation) as a requirement generally to report activity to the authorities responsible for imposing penalties. The reporting requirement is also incumbent on all employees under the Labour Code (the notification of irregularities to the Tax Office and the Ministry of Finance being further governed by Section 22 of the Financial Control Act).DKDE1Federal Government Guidelines on the Prevention of Corruption in the Federal Administration (Richtlinie der Bundesregierung zur Korruptionsprävention in der Bundesverwaltung): Point 10 - Reporting and measures in the case of suspected corruption.30.7.2014Reporting and measures in the case of suspected corruption: 10.1. When the suspicion of corruption is borne out by facts, the head of department must immediately notify the Public Prosecutor and the highest administrative authority. Also, internal investigations must be held, and measures to prevent a cover-up must be taken. 10.2. Every year the highest Federal authorities must provide information in the specified anonymous form to the Federal Ministry of the Interior - also in the case of subordinate sectors - regarding cases of suspected corruption in which procedures have been launched.EE1There is an obligation to report a criminal offence in the first degree (see Section 307, Estonian Penal Code on https://www.riigiteataja.ee/en/eli/522012015002/consolide) and incidents of corruption on the part of officials (see Section 6, Estonian Anti-Corruption Act on https://www.riigiteataja.ee/en/eli/529012015001/consolide).12.7.2014There is no obligation to report fraud where failure to comply with that obligation results in sanctions being imposed.Legal obligation for public officials to refer to a law enforcement or a judicial authority on any crime he/she becomes aware of in the execution of his/her tasksNo such provision 
 
 
 
 
59 

MSYESArticle and title of ActDate of entry into forceCommentIEEL1Article 37 of the Code of Criminal Procedure [Κώδικα Ποινικής Δικονομίας]8.8.1986Under Article 37 of the Code of Criminal Procedure: 1. Investigating officials have a duty to communicate without delay to the competent public prosecutor any information they obtain by any means regarding offences that may be prosecuted on the prosecutor's own initiative. 2. Other public officials and persons exercising public office temporarily are subject to the same duty with regard to the offences referred to in paragraph 1, if they became aware of them in the performance of their duties. 3. The communication must be in writing and must include all the available information concerning the offence, the perpetrators and the evidence.ES1Organic Law 10/1995 of 23 November 1995 on the Criminal Code: Article 408. Royal Decree of 14 September 1882 approving the Law on Criminal Procedure: Article 105 for officials of the Public Prosecutor's Office, Article 259 for ‘naming and shaming’ and Article 262 by virtue of post, profession and office.14.9.1882Article 408 of the Criminal Code: 'Any authority or public official who, failing in the obligations of his post, intentionally fails to seek the prosecution of offences of which he obtains knowledge or of those responsible for such offences, shall incur the punishment of specific disqualification from public employment or office for a period of six months to two years.' Article 262 of LECRIM (Law on Criminal Procedure): 'Anyone who by virtue of his post, profession or office becomes aware of a public offence shall report it immediately ... if the person who fails to report the offence is a public servant, his superior shall also be informed.'FR1Article 40(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code25.10.1795‘Any established authority, public official or civil servant who, in the performance of his duties, becomes aware of a crime or offence is required to notify the Public Prosecutor of the Republic without delay and to send to this magistrate all the information, official reports and documents relating thereto.’HR1Article 14 a of Civil Servants Act4.5.2012Article 14 a of Civil Servants Act determines legal protection of the employee who reportssuspicion of corruption. Furthermore, Articles 301 and 302 of Criminal Code (OJ 125/11, 144/12)determine obligation for every person to report preparation of a criminal offence and commissionof a criminal offence.IT1Article 331 Code of Criminal Procedure ‘Reporting of offences by public officials and public service employees'22.9.1988/No such provisionLegal obligation for public officials to refer to a law enforcement or a judicial authority on any crime he/she becomes aware of in the execution of his/her tasks 
 
 
 
 
60 

MSYESArticle and title of ActDate of entry into forceCommentCY1Article 69A of the Public Service Act (Act 1/90), obligation of officials to report corruption19.12.2013/LV1Criminal Law, Section 315.Failing to Inform of Crimes(a serious or especially serious crime),01.04.1999.;Criminal Procedure Law,Section 6.Mandatory Nature of Criminal Proceedings,01.10.2005;Law on Prevention of Conflict of Interest in Activities of Public Officials,Article 20,21,21.1, 10.05.20021.4.1999Other national regulations on reporting irregularities and internal procedures of institutions.LT1Paragraphs 73 and 84 of the Rules on the administration and funding of operational programmes, approved by Lithuanian Government Resolution No 1225 of 12 November 2008 on the approval of the Rules on the administration and funding of operational programmes (2007–2013 programming period).30.11.2008Other legislation: Paragraph 204 of the Rules on the administration of the operational programme for investments from the European Union Funds for 2014–2020, approved by Lithuanian Government Resolution No 1090 of 3 October 2014 on the approval of the Rules on the administration of the operational programme for investments from the EU Funds for 2014–2020 (entry into force: 15 October 2014).LU1Article 9 of the Law of 16 April 1979 laying down the general terms and conditions of employment for civil servants, as amended by Article 23 of the Criminal Code (Article 5 of 13 February 2011 stepping up measures to combat corruption...) 13.2.2011Any duly constituted authority, public official or civil servant, and any employee or agent responsible for a public service mission, whether they be employed or mandated under public or private law, who, in the performance of their duties, becomes aware of facts that may constitute a crime or offence, is required to notify the Public Prosecutor without delay and to send to the Public Prosecutor all the information, notwithstanding any rule of confidentiality or professional secrecy that may be applicable to them.HU1Section 171(2) of Act XIX of 1998 on criminal procedure1.1.2000Legal obligation is also established by:(1) Section 86(4) of Government Decree No 4/2011 of 28 January 2011 on the rules for the use of aid from the European Regional Development Fund, the European Social Fund and the Cohesion Fund in the 2007-2013 programming period;(2) Section 160(5) of Government Decree No 272/2014 of 5 November 2014 on the rules for the use of aid from certain EU funds in the 2014-2020 programming period.Legal obligation for public officials to refer to a law enforcement or a judicial authority on any crime he/she becomes aware of in the execution of his/her tasks 
 
 
 
 
61 

MSYESArticle and title of ActDate of entry into forceCommentMT1Article 16 of the Internal Audit and Financial Investigations Act (cap. 461 of the Laws of Malta).25.7.2003If an entity has reason to suspect any irregularity and, or a suspected case of fraud of public funds, it shall refer the matter forthwith to the Director, and shall supply to the Director all information in his possession relating thereto.NL1Article 162 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The Article is called 'Duty to report' and provides that any official who, in the performance of his duties, becomes aware of a crime has a duty to report it.1984/AT1Section 78 of the 1975 Code of Criminal Procedure - notification obligation, right to report and detain. Section 53 of the 1979 Civil Service Regulations (Beamtendienstrechtsgesetz) - notification obligation.        30.12.1975/PL1Code of Criminal Procedure, Article 304 - Obligation to report a crime6.6.1997National and regional bodies which, in the course of their activities, have learned of the commission of a prosecutable crime have a duty to report that crime immediately to the prosecuting authorities or the police and to take, prior to the arrival of the law-enforcement authorities or prior to the issue by these authorities of appropriate instructions, the steps necessary to prevent the concealment of evidence and proof of the crime.PT1Article 242 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Código do Processo Penal - CPP), approved by Decree-Law No 78/87 of 17 February 1987, as amended by Decree-Law No 317/95 of 28 November 1995.28.11.1995Public officials are required to report any crime they become aware of in the exercise of their duties or in their official capacity, even if the criminals are unknown. Article 243(3) of the CPP and Article 35(6) of the General Law on Tax Fraud (Regime Geral das Infrações Tributárias - RGIT), approved by Law No 15/2001 of 5 June 2001, provide that in the case of tax crimes, the official notice must be sent to the public prosecution service without delay, within a period not exceeding 10 days.Legal obligation for public officials to refer to a law enforcement or a judicial authority on any crime he/she becomes aware of in the execution of his/her tasksMSYESArticle and title of ActDate of entry into forceCommentRO1Article 263 of the Romanian Criminal Code 21.6.1968This Article was replaced by Article 267 of the new Romanian Criminal Code, which came into force on 1 February 2014.SI110.a: YES with regard to FURS: Article 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, Article 17 of the Inspection Act;10.b NO: Answer is NO with regard to SVRK and AKTRP.  14.11.2011The national authority is required to report criminal offences In accordance with the aforementioned provision of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Under the provisions of the Inspection Act the inspector is especially liable if he does not notify the responsible authorities about instances of fraud.  SK1Section 60(2)(g) of Act No 400/2009 on public service and amending and supplementing certain acts, as subsequently amended, in force from 1 November 2009.1.11.2009The obligation to report crimes laid down in Section 3(2) of Act No 301/2005 (the Code of Criminal Procedure), as amended, also applies to the state authorities and other legal persons. Section 340 of Act No 300/2005 (the Criminal Code), as amended (Crime: Failure to report a crime), applies to all persons. Obligation on employees of a control body (including government auditors) to report suspected criminal activity to the prosecution authorities within the meaning of Section 13 of Act No 502/2001 on financial control and internal auditing and amending certain other acts, as amended.FI1Act on the National Audit Office 676/2000, Section 1714.7.2000/SEUKNo such provisionNo such provisionLegal obligation for public officials to refer to a law enforcement or a judicial authority on any crime he/she becomes aware of in the execution of his/her tasks 
 
 
 
 
 
3.3.  Guidelines regarding the application of definitions in irregularity reporting 

The Member States were asked to clarify if there are any guidelines in use concerning the 
interpretation  of  the  definitions  and  on  which  base  they  were  elaborated.  All  Member 
States reported the existence and use of guidelines on irregularity reporting. 

The majority of Member States reported the use of internal guidelines developed by the 
Member States, in some instances based on former guidelines provided by the European 
Commission75  and  in  other  instances  based  on  guidelines  provided  by  the  European 
Commission along with national guidelines76. Eight Member States77 reported the use of 
guidelines provided by the European Commission only. 

Table 5: Use of guidelines by Member States 

The table above shows what type of guidelines are in use in the Member States 

75  
76  

77  

Denmark, Croatia, Italy, Cyprus, Lithuania, Malta, Poland and Sweden 
Belgium, Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Estonia, Greece, Latvia, Hungary, Netherlands, Romania, Slovenia, Slovakia 
and Finland 
Germany, Ireland, Spain, France, Luxembourg, Austria, Portugal and the United Kingdom 

62 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                            
3.3.1.  Internal guidelines on the interpretation of definitions in irregularity reporting 

developed by the Member States 

The  twenty  Member  States  which  have  replied  that  they  use  internal  guidelines 
(alongside those provided by the Commission or not) were asked to specify whether they 
have developed specific instructions on how to interpret certain specific concepts defined 
in  the  regulations.  Three  ‘concepts’  were  identified  and  a  fourth  category  allowed 
Member States to provide additional inputs: 

  “economic operator”78; 
  “primary administrative or judicial finding (PACA)”79; 
  “suspected fraud”80; 
  “other definitions” to be further specified. 

Table 6: Concepts and definitions specified in internal guidelines 

The table shows what type of definition is used in the internal guidelines of the Member States 

  Definition of economic operator was reported by Belgium, Czech Republic, Estonia, 

Latvia, Netherlands, Poland and Romania. 

  Definition of Primary administrative or judicial finding (PACA) was reported by 
Belgium, Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Greece, Italy, Cyprus, Latvia, 
Lithuania, Hungary, Netherlands, Poland, Romania, Slovakia and Finland.  

78  

79  

80  

The concept of “economic operator” is linked directly to the definition of “irregularity”. For a legal definition, in 
relation to irregularity reporting, see, inter alia, article 27 (a) of Regulation (EC) No 1828/2006. 
The PACA is the triggering moment for the obligation to report an irregularity to the Commission. For a legal 
definition, in relation to irregularity reporting, see, inter alia, article 27 (b) of Regulation (EC) No 1828/2006. 
Suspected fraud is a specific subset of the irregularity concept. For a legal definition, in relation to irregularity 
reporting, see, inter alia, article 27 (c) of Regulation (EC) No 1828/2006. 

63 

MSeconomic operatorPACAsuspected fraudother definitionsBE111BG111CZ111DK1EE1111EL11HR1IT1CY11LV1111LT1HU1MT1NL111PL11RO1111SI1SK111FI11SE1Internal guidelines developed by the Member States 
 
 
 
 
                                                            
  Definition  of  suspected  fraud  was  reported  by  Belgium,  Bulgaria,  Czech  Republic, 

Estonia, Greece, Latvia, Romania and Slovakia.  

  ‘Other  definitions’  were  reported  by  Belgium,  Bulgaria,  Estonia,  Croatia,  Cyprus, 
Latvia, Malta, Netherlands Romania, Slovenia, Slovakia, Finland and Sweden (will be 
explained later). 

3.3.1.1. Definition of economic operator 

Seven Member States81 reported the application of the definition of economic operator 
and natural, or legal, person acting as a project applicant or beneficiary, in their national 
guidelines82.  The  definition  is  applied  in  line  with  the  relevant  EU  Regulations  and 
guidelines  for  their  application  issued  by  the  European  Commission  (1828/2006, 
1848/2006)  and  is  in  line  with  the  Council  Regulation  on  the  protection  of  European 
Communities (Article 7 of Regulation EC, Euratom 2988/95). 

Table 7: Interpretation of the definition of economic operator in internal guidelines 

81   
82  

Belgium, Czech Republic, Estonia, Latvia, Netherlands, Poland and Romania   
I.e. developed by the Member States or provided by the European Commission alongside national guidelines. 

64 

MSDefinition of economic operatorBE‘Economic operator’ means any natural or legal person or other entity taking part in the implementation of assistance from the Funds, with the exception of a Member State exercising its prerogatives as a public authority (Article 27, Regulation (EC) No 1828/2006).CZAn 'economic operator' is any natural or legal person or other entity involved in the implementation of aid from EU funds, with the exception of the Member States in the exercise of public powers. In this connection it must be emphasised that operations carried out by state authorities for the purpose of implementing EU Structural Funds cannot be regarded as the exercise of public powers within the meaning of the above definition.EEThe economic operator is any natural or legal person or other body involved in using the aid, including a Member State public authority. The guidelines can be found on the Ministry of Finance website: http://www.fin.ee/toetustega-seotud-rikkumisedLV“Economic operator” means any natural or legal person or another entity taking part in the administration of assistance from EU funds, with the exception of Member States exercising their prerogatives as a public authority (the exception in practice in not application to the management of EU funds programmes and project implementation). For the purpose of these guidelines an economic operator is a project applicant, as well as a beneficiary (Guidelines of the Managing Authority of EU Structural Funds and Cohesion Fund (MA of EU funds) No.10.11 for Reporting on the Irregularities Identified during the EU Funds Implementation and Recovery of Irregular Expenditure in the Programming Period 2007-2013). “Economic operator” (beneficiary) shall mean any person who has applied to the financial support from European Union or state budget, as well as a person who has applied for and received the European Union or state budget funding (Internal procedure of Rural Support Service (RSS) No.3 of 8 December 2011 “Procedure for the reporting of irregularities/ undue payments and the recovery of undue payments in the Rural Support Service”); NLArticle 7 of Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2988/95 refers to economic operators who are 'natural or legal persons and other entities on which national law confers legal capacity who are suspected of having committed irregularities, persons who took part in committing the irregularity and persons who are under a duty to take responsibility for the irregularity or to ensure that it is not committed'.PLUnder the latest national guidelines concerning cohesion policy for the 2007-2013 financial perspective, the term 'economic operator' refers both to bodies engaged in implementing EU funds, whether as a party to a cofinancing agreement or as a recipient of aid (beneficiary), and to bodies performing tasks in connection with the implementation of EU funds (tasks arising from their function in the management and control system). As a result, any breaches of rules resulting from acts of commission or omission by these bodies that also qualify as irregularities will be subject to obligatory reporting to the European Commission under the relevant regulations. As the definition of economic operator in Regulation 1848/2006 concerning the CAP is different, there is no such doubt as regards the interpretation of economic operator, which in this instance is synonymous with beneficiary.ROThe term 'economic operator' has the meaning assigned to it by the applicable regulations and the guidelines for their application issued by the European UnionInternal guidelines developed by the Member States 
 
 
 
                                                            
3.3.1.2. Definition of Primary administrative or judicial finding (PACA) 

The Member States were asked to specify whether there is a specific interpretation of the definition of primary administrative and judicial 
finding (PACA) in the national guidelines. Sixteen Member States reported about such interpretation83. The definitions are in line with the 
EU regulations in force and reflect specific national procedures applied and bodies involved. Denmark, Lithuania and Slovakia specifically 
reported guidance on PACA for the current programming period 2014-2020. 

Concerning the date (or phase) of the primary administrative or judicial finding, more details are provided in the specific replies provided in 
relation to this question (see paragraph 3.4 on ‘Types of PACA’).  

Table 8: Definition of the Primary administrative or judicial finding (PACA) in national guidelines on reporting 

83  

Belgium, Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Greece, Italy, Cyprus, Latvia, Lithuania, Hungary, Netherlands, Poland, Romania, Slovakia and Finland 

65 

MSDefinition of PACABE‘Primary administrative or judicial finding’ means a first written assessment by a competent authority, either administrative or judicial, concluding on the basis of specific facts that an irregularity has been committed, without prejudice to the possibility that this conclusion may subsequently have to be revised or withdrawn as a result of developments in the course of the administrative or judicial procedure (Article 27, Regulation (EC) No 1828/2006). This document must include the results of a hearing involving both parties.BGIn the national legislation there is a provision that treats the application of PACA, art. 14, par. 1 of the Ordinance for establishing procedures for administering irregularities of funds, instruments, and programmes co-financed by the EU. Moreover, in national issued methodological guidlines it is described which document should be considered as PACA. It is the document issued by the Managing authority in which it is declared that an irregularity is established. This statement is based on a preliminary check as a result of which facts that prove a committed irregularity are found.CZPrimary administrative or judicial finding' means the competent administrative or judicial authority's initial written assessment in which – on the basis of specific facts – the authority comes to the opinion that irregularities have occurred, without prejudice to the possibility that such a conclusion may in the course of administrative or judicial proceedings be subsequently revised or withdrawn.DKDuring the 2014-2020 programme period, the working definition of PACA mentioned below serves as guidance for case handlers in the structural funds sector. Definition of the primary administrative or judicial finding (PACA). In practice, the Danish Business authority reports the cases in the statement of expenditure (request for payment) that is submitted to the Commission when a final audit report has been drawn up by verifying authorities such as the National Audit Office of Denmark, the Court of Auditors, the Commission, the audit authority or the administrative authority. The audit report should conclude that an irregularity has been committed, and propose the action to be taken in respect of the applicant. In cases where case handlers send a recovery order, this would also be considered "a primary administrative or judicial finding". Irregularities due solely to the complete or partial failure to carry out an operation when an aid beneficiary goes bankrupt are not reported. Nor are cases reported in which the beneficiary voluntarily brings the matter to the attention of the administrative or certifying authority before one of them discovers it, regardless of whether the public contribution has already been paid.If fraud is suspected, a primary administrative or judicial finding  is drawn up when it is decided to transfer the case to the Public Prosecutor for Serious Economic and International Crime (Danish acronym, SØIK). Internal guidelines developed by the Member States 
 
 
 
 
                                                            
66 

MSDefinition of PACAEEA primary finding is deemed to be an assessment by the competent administrative or investigating authority in the initial written document (on-the-spot report, final audit report, etc.) where, on the basis of the facts, it can be concluded whether the rules have been infringed. Any infringement established or suspected must be reported within 10 working days of the official confirmation of the infringement or suspected infringement, i.e. with documents supporting these suspicions (a decision, on-the-spot report, cost statement, audit report, etc.).The guidelines can be found on the Ministry of Finance website: http://www.fin.ee/toetustega-seotud-rikkumisedELThere is a primary administrative or judicial finding when all of these three conditions are met:  a) the amount to be recovered has been calculated, b) the identity of the debtor is known and c) the debtor has been duly informed of the debt.ITPrimary administrative finding: assessment by the decision-making bodies of the data and evidence in the first record of findings or in the files so as to preclude the need requirement to forward cases every time that offences constituting irregularities or fraud have clearly not been committed.Primary judicial finding - this must be the point at which:  in ordinary proceedings, the request is made to bring the case before the courts, or for alternative procedures, under Article 405 Code of Criminal Procedure; in proceedings before the general court sitting with a single judge, the public prosecutor serves a direct summons for trial by issuing a summons under Articles 550 and 552 Code of Criminal Procedure.CYThe primary administrative finding is made in writing by the competent department. The document setting out the findings of the administration (department) must conclude, on the basis of specific events, that an irregularity was committed, i.e. that the applicant infringed a provision of national or EU legislation which resulted or could have resulted in the wrong and/or undue payment of Community aid to the applicant. For the document to be official, it must be signed by the head of the department.LV“primary administrative or judicial finding” means a first written assessment by a competent authority, either administrative or judicial, concluding on the basis of specific facts that an irregularity has been committed, without prejudice to the possibility that this conclusion may subsequently have to be revised or withdrawn as a result of developments in the course of the administrative or judicial procedure. For the purpose of Regulation No 2035/2005 a cooperation or responsible institution can also be a “primary administrative finding”. In the explanation provided in Article 1 of the Regulation “primary administrative or judicial finding” means a first written assessment by a competent authority, either administrative or judicial, concluding on the basis of specific facts that an irregularity has been committed, without prejudice to the possibility that this conclusion may subsequently have to be revised or withdrawn as a result of developments in the course of the administrative or judicial procedure. In this case it shall not be literally perceived that administrative or legal proceedings have been initiated, because the consideration of the case is subject to national regulatory acts. A cooperation or responsible institution is often the first identifying the irregularity, which is also recorded in writing (Guidelines of the MA of EU funds No.10.11). In the case of common agricultural policy in accordance “primary administrative or judicial finding” means a first written assessment by a competent authority, either administrative or judicial, concluding on the basis of specific facts that an irregularity has been committed, without prejudice to the possibility that this conclusion may subsequently have to be revised or withdrawn as a result of developments in the course of the administrative or judicial procedure. LTThe Methodological recommendations for investigating and identifying irregularities, approved by Order No 1K-173 of 29 May 2009 by the Minister for Finance on the approval of the Methodological recommendations for investigating and identifying irregularities:Paragraph 15 of the Methodological recommendations lays down that the conclusion of an investigation is the first written assessment (the primary administrative or judicial finding - hereinafter PACA) concluding on the basis of specific facts that an irregularity has been committed, without prejudice to the possibility that this conclusion may subsequently have to be revised or withdrawn as a result of developments in the course of the administrative or judicial procedure, as indicated in Article 27(b) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1828/2006 of 8 December 2006 setting out rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 1083/2006 laying down general provisions on the European Regional Development Fund, the European Social Fund and the Cohesion Fund and of Regulation (EC) No 1080/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council on the European Regional Development Fund (OJ L 371, 2006, p. 1) as last amended by Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1236/2011 of 29 November 2011 (OJ L 317, 2011,  p. 24).Also, paragraph 210 of the Rules on the administration of the operational programme for investments from the European Union Funds for 2014–2020 lays down that the European Commission must be notified about any irregularities identified within two months following the end of the reference quarter. An infringement is identified when the institution has conducted an investigation into the infringement and has adopted a decision (equivalent to the PACA) that an infringement has been identified (paragraphs 314 and 318 of the Rules on the administration and funding of projects, approved by Order No 1K-316 of 8 October 2014 by the Minister for Finance on the approval of the Rules on the administration and funding of projects).Internal guidelines developed by the Member States 
 
 
 
 
67 

MSDefinition of PACAHU1. The Agricultural and Rural Development Office, which is the body discharging the tasks of paying agency for aid from the European Fund for Agriculture and Rural Development (EAFRD) and the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF), uses the definition laid down by Article 35 of Regulation 1290/2005/EC, but the internal written procedure also specifies which types of decision (e.g. decision establishing undue benefit, amending or revoking a decision, etc.) include an order to return undue aid.2. The document entitled 'Handbook for reporting irregularities relating to aid from the European Regional Development Fund, the European Social Fund and the Cohesion Fund in the 2007-2013 programming period', drawn up by the Hungarian anti-fraud coordination service (AFCOS) and available on the website of the National Tax and Customs Administration, states the following:'The "first administrative or legal finding" mentioned in Section 90(2)(a) of Government Decree No 4/2011 is based on the decision issued by the head of the body carrying out the procedure, pursuant to the irregularity report.'NLA primary administrative finding is a report by a management authority, certifying authority, audit authority or other control department (it may also be an EU control), where enough facts are recorded which involve the irregularity detected. There is no set form to follow for this type of report (memo, letter, an entry in the Article 13 check-list). It only has to be recorded when: - the individual findings are final (and the adversary procedure has taken place) and - any amount to be corrected is identified.PLIt is not possible from the wording of the definition to identify one type of document that can be considered a PACA to the exclusion of all others (not even at the level of a fund, sector or body). Under the relevant guidelines, the competent authority decides which of the documents drawn up and collected in a given case is to be recognised as meeting the criteria laid down in the definition of PACA. The national guidelines explain that a PACA will generally be a written assessment confirming the existence of an irregularity in a given case. The guidelines provide an indicative list of documents that can be recognised as a PACA, but it is no more than an aid and not exhaustive, so documents not mentioned therein can also serve as a PACA. The guidelines also state that, in the event of the receipt of anonymous information, press reports or other unconfirmed information from any source suggesting a possible irregularity, the competent authority is to carry out an investigation to verify the allegations made. The verification of the information will culminate in the drafting of a final official document which will, if justified, constitute a PACA or exclude the occurrence of irregularities.ROUnder the current Emergency Order, the following are deemed to be primary administrative findings: a) the report identifying irregularities and establishing budget debts issued by the competent authorities and the document establishing the amount involved issued by the Audit Authority;b) the inspection document issued by DLAF and the inspection report issued by OLAF.SKFurther guidance on interpreting the definition of a primary administrative or judicial finding can be found, for instance, in the Financial Management System for the Structural Funds, the Cohesion Fund and the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund for the programme period 2014-2020, version 1.0: 'An irregularity is formally documented at national level upon the approval of a report on the detected irregularity, following the approval/discussion/forwarding/familiarisation with/delivery of an official document, depending on the type of control/audit/verification carried out, or the entry into force of an administrative decision.A suspected irregularity which has been detected, or the detection of an irregularity in an approved irregularity report, is justified in particular on the basis of:I. a report on an administrative check/on-the-spot check of the inspected entity;II. findings and recommendations from a certification check;III. a sub-report received on a government audit of an audited entity;IV. a report received on a government audit of an audited entity, where no irregularities have been set out in the sub-report on the government audit;V. a final administrative decision by the financial control administration/Ministry of Finance;VI. familiarisation of the management body with the discussed report on the results of the checks carried out by the Public Procurement Office/final administrative decision by the management body;VII. a report received on an audit by the European Commission or European Court of Auditors;VIII. a report received on an investigation by the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF);IX. the discussed report on the results of the checks carried out by the Supreme Audit Office;X. the discussed report on the results of the checks carried out by the Government Office of the Slovak Republic;XI. the discussed report on the results of an internal check/internal audit;XII. receipt of a decision to institute criminal proceedings;XIII. a decision by the Anti-monopoly Office concerning a restrictive agreement within the meaning of Section 4(1) of Act No 136/2001'.FIThe definition has been clarified with practical examples on the types of findings:Primary administrative or judicial finding means the first written assessment on a detected irregularity. In practice this means that during audit or other control activities an irregularity has been detected based on concrete facts. Such written assessment can be, for example, an audit report, a report on on-the-spot control, a payment decision, a decision to suspend or finish the payments or a decision on recovery/withdrawal. 
 
 
 
 
3.3.1.3. Definition of suspected fraud 

The Member States were asked to provide further information on the application of the 
‘definition  of  suspected  fraud’  in  their  national  guidelines.  Eight  Member  States 
(Belgium,  Bulgaria,  Czech  Republic,  Estonia,  Greece,  Latvia,  Romania  and  Slovakia) 
reported  information  about  the  interpretation  of  such  definition  in  their  national 
guidelines84.   

The national legislation reflects the definitions used in the relevant EU legislation, i.e. the 
Article 1.1.(a) of the Convention on the Protection of European Communities’ Financial 
Interests  drawn  up  on  the  basis  of  Article  K.3  of  the  Treaty  on  European  Union  and 
Article  27  of  Regulation  (EC)  No  1828/2006.  In  addition,  Bulgaria  reported  using  the 
'suspicion  of  irregularity'  and  Slovakia  reported  a  new  procedure  on  IRQ3  irregularity 
qualification85, in force as of 2015. 

The replies provided are detailed in Table 9. 

84  
85  

The full version of definitions can be seen in the two tables below. 
IRQ3 Irregularity qualification refers to the specific code used in the Irregularity Management System (IMS) to 
indicate that a given irregularity is a “suspicion of fraud”. 

68 

 
 
 
 
                                                            
Table 9: Application of the definition of ‘suspected fraud’ in internal guidelines on the reporting of eight Member States 

69 

MSDefinition of suspected fraudBE‘Suspected fraud’ means an irregularity giving rise to the initiation of administrative or judicial proceedings at national level in order to establish the presence of intentional behaviour, in particular fraud, as referred to in point (a) of Article 1(1) of the Convention on the protection of the European Communities' financial interests (Article 27, Regulation (EC) No 1828/2006).BGThe national legislation adopts the same definition as the one in the EU Regulations and PIF Convention 1995, in par. 1, p. 3 of the Supplementing provisions of Ordinance for establishing procedures for administering irregularities of funds, instruments, and programmes co-financed by the EU. Moreover, in national issued methodological guidelines it is described that suspected fraud is a type of irregularity. That means an infringement should be found and if there is a suspicion that it was committed intentionally then the case is qualified as a suspected fraud. The focus is on the committed infringement because if there is only a suspicion of the infringement the case is said to be suspicion of irregularity.CZSuspected fraud' is an irregularity that prompts criminal proceedings at Member State level with a view to determining whether the activity in question was intentional and, in particular, whether fraud has been committed within the meaning of Article 1(a) of the Convention on the Protection of the European Communities' Financial Interests, which was drawn up on the basis of Article K.3 of the Treaty on European Union. Such cases are also subject to the reporting requirement under Czech law – the audit authorities being required in particular to report to the authorities active in criminal proceedings any suspicion of criminal activity arising in the course of an audit.EEThe Ministry of Finance must be informed of any suspected offence within 10 working days, irrespective of the amount of damages. An offence is a punishable act provided for in the Penal Code or another Act. (See Article 3 of the Estonian Penal Code on https://www.riigiteataja.ee/en/eli/522012015002/consolide).  The guidelines can be found on the Ministry of Finance website: http://www.fin.ee/toetustega-seotud-rikkumisedInternal guidelines developed by the Member States 
 
 
 
 
 
70 

MSDefinition of suspected fraudELAn irregularity is deemed to be suspected fraud if the case file has been sent to the competent public prosecutor.LV“Suspected fraud” means an irregularity giving rise to the initiation of administrative and/or judicial proceedings at national level in order to establish the presence of intentional behaviour, in particular fraud, such as is referred to in Article 1(1), point (a), of the Convention on the protection of the European Communities’ financial interests; a) in respect of expenditure, any intentional act or omission relating to: - the use or presentation of false, incorrect or incomplete statements or documents, which has as its effect the misappropriation or wrongful retention of funds from the general budget of the European Communities or budgets managed by, or on behalf of, the European Communities, - non-disclosure of information in violation of a specific obligation, with the same effect - the misapplication of such funds for purposes other than those for which they were originally granted. (Guidelines of the MA of EU Funds No.10.11)ROFraud - an offence committed in connection with obtaining or using European funds and/or related national public funds, punishable under the Criminal Code or other specific laws; The term 'suspected fraud' has the meaning assigned to it by the applicable regulations and the guidelines for their application issued by the European Union.SKThe Irregularities Notification Manual states that the IRQ 3 (suspected fraud) qualification is assigned where criminal proceedings are begun in connection with an irregularity and a decision or notification of the initiation of criminal proceedings is issued. It is also used where criminal proceedings are deferred pursuant to Section 216(1)(a) and (b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, if a notification of the deferral of criminal proceedings has been issued. Building on expertise in practical application in accordance with Article 27 of Regulation (EC) No 1828/2006 and Article 2 of Regulation (EC) No 1848/2006, with effect from 1 January 2015 the setting of the IRQ 3 irregularity qualification  is determined as follows: 'An irregularity is qualified as suspected fraud on the basis of a control report/the results of the assessment of a reply by the MA/IBMA/PU to the findings and the recommendations from the certification check/system and operational audits/report on the Commission's audit/OLAF investigation to the prosecution authorities. IRQ 3 qualification is assigned to an irregularity by an entity which suspects that events occurred suggesting the commission of criminal activity, and the basis for assigning IRQ 3 qualification is any internal  documentdemonstrating the sending of relevant documentation to the prosecution authorities. If the irregularity is caused by the MA,  only the written version of the irregularity report is processed without being registered in the ITMS, and that is sent to the CA and the OLAF  Central Contact Point. If the criminal proceedings are instigated by a person other than apublic authority, the MA registers a change of  qualification of the irregularity from IRQ 2 to IRQ 3 or a new IRQ3 irregularity on the basis of a 'decision/notification of the initiation of criminal  proceedings', requested from the prosecution authorities at the time when it is informed by a third party that criminal proceedings have begun  in connection with the implementation of the operational programme managed by it'. Comment on practice of reporting: From 1 January 2015 – For fraudulent irregularities, the date of the first administrative or judicial finding in the case of an initiative by the public  authorities is the date of submission of the irregularity to the prosecution authorities and, in the case of an initiative by natural and legal  persons other than the public authorities, following completion of the initial phase of the investigation'.Internal guidelines developed by the Member States 
 
 
 
 
 
3.3.1.4. Other relevant definitions in use 

‘Other definitions’ in use concerning the reporting of irregularities in their 
national guidelines were reported by the following ten Member States: Bulgaria, 
Estonia, Croatia, Latvia, Malta, Netherlands, Romania, Slovakia, Finland and 
Sweden. 

These include clarifications about the definitions of: 

 

irregularity (the notion of irregularity, the suspicion of irregularity or 
suspected infringement of the EU law) 

  bankruptcy (insolvency proceedings in line with the Council Regulation 

(EC) No 1346/2000). 

The replies are detailed in Table 10. 

71 

 
 
 
 
 
Table 10: Other definitions in use by ten Member States in their national guidelines on the reporting of irregularities 

72 

MSOther definitions in use BGIn the national legislation there is a legal definition of “suspicion of irregularity" in par. 1, p. 4 of the Supplementing provisions of Ordinance for establishing procedures for administering irregularities of funds, instruments, and programmes co-financed by the EU. It states that suspicion of irregularity is any incoming information, including from an anonymous source, for a committed irregularity. The information should at least give reference about the project, financing programme, an administrative structure and a description of the irregularity. In methodological guidelines it is specified that the information should give enough ground to consider there is an irregularity. The follow-up actions require a check of the information and subsequently a decision is made by the Managing authority, issuing PACA, whether to establish irregulariy (fraudulent or not fraudulent) or not.EE1. An infringement of Community law also includes not complying with the requirements of national law and compulsory procedure. 2. ‘...would damage...’ - when no infringement is established and the aid would be paid out, i.e. an infringement can occurr also before the aid is paid out. 3. An infringement means not complying with the requirements set in law, in a decision to grant aid and the annexes thereto, or in procedural guidelines, which can be quantified in money - activities or costs (whether planned or not) linked to an infringement are not eligible for EU aid.4.Cases of financial loss – there are infringements where it is not possible to assess the exact size of the loss but an infringement report must be provided within 10 working days. In such cases, it is written in the report that there has been a suspected infringement, that the exact amount of the damages is being established and that the amount indicated is the total for the project or for the particular action or transaction. 5. Case management - case management is generally handled by the body that made the decision to grant the aid. If necessary, other competent bodies (investigating authorities, the Tax and Customs Board, etc.) are also involved; in such cases, the decision-maker has the obligation to review the management of the case and submit infringement reports. The Ministry of Finance monitors case management through these reports and, if necessary, targets and provides information. 6. Closing cases - an infringement case is closed when all the circumstances behind the infringement have been resolved and all corrective actions have been taken (for example, the court has made its decision, the amounts have been recovered, the decision to grant aid has been cancelled or modified, etc.).The guidelines can be found on the Ministry of Finance website: http://www.fin.ee/toetustega-seotud-rikkumisedHRAll the relevant definitions including the definitions of economic operator, PACA and defintion of suspected fraud are embedded in national Guidelines from relevant EC Regulations (Commission Regulation 1828/2006, Commission Regulation 1848/2006, Commission Regulation 498/2007). LVBankruptcy' means insolvency proceedings within the meaning of Article 2, point (a), of Council Regulation (EC) No 1346/2000. Within the meaning of Article 120 of the Insolvency Law „bankruptcy” means completion of insolvency proceedings with a court decision without initiation of legal protection proceedings. (Guidelines of the MA of EU Fund No.10.11) Concerning the Latvia-Lithuania Cross-border cooperation Programme and the Estonia - Latvia - Russia Cross Border Cooperation Programme within European Neighbourhood and Partnership Instrument 2007 – 2013 only guidelines provided by the European Commission regarding application of definitions in the irregularity reporting are in use.MTDefinition of 'irregularity' according to the Internal Audit and Financial Investigations Act (cap. 461 of the Laws of Malta): "means whichever act or omission which unlawfully diminishes public funds and whatever is not consonant with the proper management thereof".In the Criminal Code, we find the following: a. Misappropriation (Article 293); b. Obtaining Money by false pretenses (Article 308); and c. Other Fraudulent Gain (Article 309). According to the Permanent Commission against Corruption Act (cap. 326 of the Laws of Malta), 'corrupt practice' is defined in Article 6.Internal guidelines developed by the Member States 
 
 
 
 
 
73 

MSOther definitions in use NLThe definition given to the notion of ‘irregularity’ is rather broad. The definition includes, among other things, the following points: operations which have led to negative financial consequences for the EU or which could lead to negative financial consequences; both intentional and unintentional operations; operations which are systematic or incidental. Where an operation in or of a project (or a final beneficiary) is in breach of European law, this constitutes an irregularity. Often, irregularities consist of expenditure which has already been incurred or may still be incurred and which is or would possibly be included in a statement of expenditure to be declared to the European Commission, even though the expenditure is not eligible for financing from the structural funds (financial irregularities).Technical mistakes and clerical errors also have to be considered as irregularities and must therefore be recorded.ROIrregularity - any deviation from legality, from regularity or from conformity with national and/or European provisions or contractual provisions, or other legal commitments entered into on the basis of such provisions, that results from action or inaction on the part of a beneficiary or an authority responsible for managing European funds and has been or could be detrimental to the budget of the European Union and/or related national public funds through an amount being unduly paid; Irregularities of a systemic/systematic nature - irregularities which are generated by the manner in which the key requirements of the management and control systems are met, and which stem either from flaws in the design of the management and control procedures, from systematic errors in the application of the management and control procedures or the non-correlation of national legislative provisions with European Union regulations; Reporting of irregularities - any activities that lead to the European Commission, European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF), being informed, in accordance with Romania's obligations as an EU Member State, of an irregularity having been ascertained on the basis of a primary administrative finding.The terms 'management authority', 'intermediate body', 'operation', 'eligibility', 'conflict of interests', 'systemic irregularity', 'error materiality threshold', 'detriment', 'administrative verification', 'delegated project', 'OLAF inspection report', 'debtors ledger', 'primary administrative finding', as well as the principles of free competition, equal and non-discriminatory treatment and transparency, have the meanings assigned to them by the applicable regulations and the guidelines for their application issued by the European UnionSKAt national level there are, for example, the following types of irregularity:• an irregularity in the 'initial screening' whereadministrative/judicial/criminal proceedings are incomplete and the initial information on the irregularity must be registered and also notified to the OLAF office;• an irregularity with no financial impact, where the irregularity (suspected fraud, public procurement infringement or systemic shortcomings) was found prior to payment being made to the beneficiary or partner, or one which cannot be quantified in monetary terms or for which there is no obligation to settle the funding (e.g. false accounting);• an irregularity with financial impact on the state budget, where the irregularity (suspected fraud) was found prior to the approval of the expenditure concerned in the combined payment request/exceptional combined payment request;• an irregularity with financial impact on the expenditure approved in the combined payment request, where the irregularity was found during the phase when the expenditure concerned had been approved in the combined payment request/exceptional combined payment request and had not been recognised in the statement of expenditure in the application for payment to the European Commission;• an irregularity with financial impact on the expenditure declared to the European Commission where the irregularity was found during the phase when the expenditure concerned had already been recognised in the statement of expenditure in the application for payment to the European Commission;• an irregularity combined with financial impact and also with no financial impact, where the irregularity was found during the phase when part of the expenditure concerned had already been paid to the beneficiary/approved in the combined payment request/exceptional combined payment request/recognised in the application for payment to the European Commission and part of the financial correction concerns future expenditure declared by the beneficiary in applications for payment (in particular cross-cutting infringements/shortcomings, especially public procurement infringements).FIThe definition on an irregularity has been clarified with practical examples: An irregularity means that the aid has been granted or paid unjustly to the beneficiary due to irregular activity with regard to the valid regulations. The actor conducting the irregularity can be both the intermediate body that has granted or paid the aid and the beneficiary. Technical errors, such as spelling or typing errors, are not considered as irregularities.SEA guidance document on handling suspicious criminality in connection with management of EU funds was adopted by the Swedish Council for the protection of the European Union’s financial interests in October 2014 and has been distributed to all agencies concerned. The guidance document is used to guide the administrators in how to detect frauds and errors and in which case they are supposed to report a crime to the Swedish Economic Crime Authority. The guidance document includes the definitions of different suspected crimes. It also informs about the obligation to report irregularities to OLAFInternal guidelines developed by the Member States 
 
 
 
 
 
3.4.  Definition of Primary administrative or judicial finding (PACA) 

All  Member  States  were  asked  to  give  information  on  how  the  concept  of  primary 
administrative or judicial finding (PACA) is applied and specify the relevant procedures 
in place.  

The questionnaire proposed four types of possibilities: 

  TYPE  A,  applying  a  uniform  procedure  in  all  sectors  and  types  of  irregularity,  was 

answered by fourteen Member States86; 

  TYPE  B,  applying  a  uniform  procedure  for  all  types  of  irregularity,  however 

differently per sector, was answered by six Member States87; 

  TYPE  C,  applying  different  procedures  between  types  of  irregularities  but  uniform 

per sector, was answered by two Member States88;  

  TYPE  D,  applying  different  procedures  per  sector  and  per  type  of  irregularity,  was 

answered by five Member States89. 

3.4.1.  TYPE  A:  Uniform  application  of  Primary  administrative  or  judicial  finding 

(PACA) in all sectors and types of irregularity 

In Malta and Slovenia the PACA is the date of the first information or document (based 
on the management verification, audit report before contradictory phase, etc.).  

In Bulgaria, Estonia, Croatia, Romania and the United Kingdom it is the date of the first 
officially  confirmed  information  or  document  (on  the  basis  of  the  final  on  the  spot 
report, final audit report etc.). 

In Germany and Austria the Primary administrative and judicial finding is defined by the 
date of the recovery order. 

Ireland, Italy, Hungary, Poland and Sweden reported other type of uniform procedure of 
PACA. 

86  

87  
88  
89  

Germany, Bulgaria, Estonia, Croatia, Ireland, Italy, Hungary, Malta, Austria, Poland, Romania, Slovenia, Sweden 
and the United Kingdom 
Belgium, Denmark, France, Cyprus, Lithuania and Netherlands 
Latvia and Slovakia 
Greece, Spain, Luxembourg, Portugal and Finland 

74 

 
 
 
 
                                                            
Table 11: Application of PACA for type A (‘uniform application’) 

3.4.2.  TYPE  B:  Uniform  application  of  Primary  administrative  or  judicial  finding 
(PACA) for all types of irregularity but different application per sector 

Belgium, Denmark, France, Cyprus, Lithuania, Netherlands reported uniform procedure 
of PACA for all types of irregularity, however differing per sector. 

75 

MSDate of the first information/documentDate of the first officially confirmed information/documentDate of the recovery orderOther - please specifyBG1DE1EE1IE1HR1IT1HU1MT1AT1PL1RO1SI1SE1UK1MSIEITHUPLSEAs explained in point 11.b.2, the date of the PACA is the date of the earliest official document drawn up in a case by the competent authority, in which it identifies the possible occurrence of an irregularity within the meaning of the relevant regulation. The competent authorities take decisions concerning PACA at their own discretion, depending on the circumstances accompanying the finding of irregularity and their assessment of the case (case-by-case).Irregularities shall be reported to OLAF and several managing authorities have developed internal guidelines for this purpose. Regarding suspected criminality, a report shall be done to the Economic Crimes Bureau as soon as there is a suspicion that an action may be criminal (no crime needs to be established beforehand).UNIFORM APPLICATION FOR ALL SECTORS AND TYPES OF IRREGULARITY Definition of Primary administrative or judicial finding (PACA)Other definitions of Primary administrative or judicial finding (PACA)Date of the first officially confirmed information/document is applicable except in the case of the ESF where an irregularity is reported when management has concluded its examination to determine whether or not reportable irregularities exist. Administrative: upon completion of the assessment by the decision-making bodies of the data and evidence in the first record of findings or in the files. Judicial: in ordinary proceedings, when the request is made to bring the case before the courts, or for alternative procedures, under Article 405 Code of Criminal Procedure, and in proceedings before the general court sitting with a single judge, when the public prosecutor serves a direct summons for trial by issuing a summons under Articles 550 and 552 Code of Criminal Procedure.The date of the decision establishing an irregularity. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
3.4.2.1.Agriculture sector  

Table  12  shows  the  definition  of  PACA  used  by  some  Member  States  for  type  B  (uniform 
procedure for all types of irregularity, but differing per sector) in the AGRICULTURE sector. 

Table 12: Application of PACA for type B - Agriculture 

76 

MSFinal audit reportThe date of recovery orderOtherBE1DK1FR1CY1LT1NL1MSFRCYLTDefinition of Primary administrative or judicial finding (PACA)UNIFORM APPLICATION FOR ALL  TYPES OF IRREGULARITIES BUT DIFFERENT PER SECTOR - AGRICULTUREWith respect to control of market measures (EAGF), the date of the PACA is the date of reception by the paying agency of the control report before the adversarial procedure (Article 54 of Regulation (EU) No 1306/2013 on the financing, management and monitoring of the CAP).There are two types of control in the rural development sector: administrative controls, where the date of the PACA is the date of the decision revoking the entitlements, and on-the-spot controls, where the date of the PACA is the date of the final report (after the adversarial phase).Direct Payments and Rural Development Units: the date on which the IACS department, as the competent authority, concludes, following the conduct of the checks and the examination of the findings, that there is an irregularity. The following applies to the KOAEPP Unit (unit responsable for EU policies, within the CY PA): the date on which the irregularity is detected, based on the signing of the check-list entitled 'assessment of whether the findings relating to a potential irregularity establish the irregularity' in the Unit's manual on the application of the irregularities procedure.Other1. In cases where no investigation is carried out into a suspected irregularity, the initial identification date of the irregularity is deemed to be the date on which the application or payment request is assessed. 2. Where an investigation is carried out into a suspected irregularity, the initial identification date of the irregularity is deemed to be as follows: a. where the penalty for the irregularity is up to LTL 100 000, the PACA is the date of the decision on the irregularity by the committee of the National Paying Agency under the Ministry of Agriculture (the project administration authority); b. where the penalty for the irregularity exceeds LTL 100 000, the PACA is the date of the decision on the irregularity by the committee of the Ministry of Agriculture (the managing authority). 
 
 
 
 
 
 
3.4.2.2. Fisheries sector 

Table  13  shows  the  definition  of  PACA  used  by  some  Member  States  for  type  B  (uniform 
procedure for all types of irregularity, but differing per sector) in the FISHERIES sector. 

Table 13: Application of PACA for type B - Fisheries 

77 

MSFinal audit reportThe date of recovery orderOtherBE1DK1FR1CY1LT1NL1MSLTUNIFORM APPLICATION TO ALL  TYPES OF IRREGULARITIES BUT DIFFERENT PER SECTOR - FISHERIESDefinition of Primary administrative or judicial finding (PACA)Other1. In cases where no investigation is carried out into a suspected irregularity, the initial identification date of the irregularity is deemed to be the date on which the application or payment request is assessed.2. Where an investigation is carried out into a suspected irregularity, the initial identification date of the irregularity is deemed to be as follows: a. where the penalty for the irregularity is up to LTL 100 000, the PACA is the date of the decision on the irregularity by the committee of the National Paying Agency under the Ministry of Agriculture (the project administration authority); b. where the penalty for the irregularity exceeds LTL 100 000, the PACA is the date of the decision on the irregularity by the committee of the Ministry of Agriculture (the managing authority). 
 
 
 
 
 
 
3.4.2.3. Cohesion policy sector 

Table  14  shows  the  definition  of  PACA  used  by  some  Member  States  for  type  B  (uniform 
procedure for all types of irregularity, but differing per sector) in the COHESION POLICY 
sector. 

Table 14: Application of PACA for type B – Cohesion policy 

78 

MSFinal audit reportThe date of recovery orderOtherBE1DK1FR1CY1LT1NL1MSBEDKLTUNIFORM APPLICATION FOR ALL  TYPES OF IRREGULARITIES BUT DIFFERENT PER SECTOR - COHESION POLICYDefinition of Primary administrative or judicial finding (PACA)OtherFrom the closure of the adversary proceedings lasting a maximum of three months. This is not always an audit in the strict sense of the word (e.g. a first-level document check).Final audit reports or the date of the recovery order.The European Commission must be notified of all irregularities relating to the administration of the EU Structural Funds. PACA date – the date of the conclusion of the investigation into the irregularity (2007–2013) or the date of the decision on the irregularity (2014–2020). Reports to the European Commission must be provided as stipulated in Article 28 of Regulation (EC) No 1828 or Article 122 of Regulation (EU) No 1303/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2013. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
3.4.3.  TYPE  C:  Different  application  between  types  of  irregularities  but  uniform 

application per sector  

Two  Member  States,  Latvia  and  Slovakia,  replied  that  they  apply  different  procedures 
between types of irregularities but have uniform application per sector. 

Table 15: Application of PACA for type C 

3.4.4.  TYPE D: Different application per sector and per type of irregularity 

Five  Member  States,  Greece,  Spain,  Luxembourg,  Portugal  and  Finland,  reported 
different procedures per sector and type of irregularity. 

79 

MSFinal audit reportThe date of recovery orderOther LV1SK1MSAfter the preliminary phase of investigationReferral to law enforcementOtherLV1SK1PACA: 'Simple' (non-fraudulent) irregularitiesDIFFERENT APPLICATION BETWEEN TYPES OF IRREGULARITIES BUT UNIFORM PER SECTORPACA: Suspected or established fraud 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
3.4.4.1. Agriculture - simple irregularities and suspected or established fraud 

Table  16  shows  the  application  of  PACA  for  type  D  in  the  agriculture  Sector  as  regards 
simple irregularities and suspected or established fraud used by five Member States. 

Table 16: Application of PACA for type D - Agriculture 

80 

MSFinal audit reportThe date of recovery orderAfter preliminary phase of investigationOtherEL1ES1LU1PT1FI1MSELPTMSReferral to law enforcementReferral to a judicial authorityAfter preliminary phase of investigationOtherEL1ES1LU1PT1FI1MSELLUMSPTDIFFERENT APPLICATION PER SECTOR AND PER TYPE OF IRREGULARITY - AGRICULTURE SECTORPACA: 'Simple' (non-fraudulent) irregularitiesOtherNotification is effected in the quarter in which the preliminary hearing document is sent to the beneficiary, notifying them of the intention to establish the recovery of the unduly received amount and of the period available to them for responding. This is the document preceding the 'reimbursement order' (namely the final decision).PACA:  Suspected or established fraudThe date of the official document of the competent authority informing the auditee of the offence and initiating the administrative procedure for recovering the amounts wrongly or unduly paid.OtherIn cases of suspected fraud, the Financial Control Committee (EDEL) refers the case either to the Public Administration Inspectorate/Audit Office under the cooperation protocol of 13 August 2012 or to the judicial authorities.Suspected fraud is declared on the date of the recovery order and notified to the judicial authorities. It is then up to a court do decide whether there is an established fraud or not; hence a court decision is needed prior to declaring an established fraud.CommentIrregularities involving suspected fraud are notified to OLAF in the quarter in which the notification is sent to the public prosecution service for investigation, even if the preliminary hearing document has not been issued. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
3.4.4.2. Fisheries - simple irregularities and suspected or established fraud 

Table  17  shows  the  application  of  PACA  for  type  D  in  the  FISHERIES  SECTOR  as 
regards  simple  irregularities  and  suspected  or  established  fraud  used  by  five  Member 
States. 

Table 17: Application of PACA for type D - Fisheries 

81 

MSFinal audit reportThe date of recovery orderOtherEL1ES1LU1PT1FI1MSLUPTMSReferral to law enforcementReferral to a judicial authorityOtherEL1ES1LU1PT1FI1MSELLUMSPTIn the quarter of the date of the first information/document signed by the head of the entity that detected the situation (for example: final report of on-site inspection, final audit report, etc.)In cases of suspected fraud, the Financial Control Committee (EDEL) refers the case either to the Public Administration Inspectorate/Audit Office under the cooperation protocol of 13 August 2012 or to the judicial authorities.N/ACommentIn the quarter of the date of the first information/document signed by the head of the entity that detected the situation (for example: final report of on-site inspection, final audit report, etc.) At the same time, the public prosecution service will have been notified.DIFFERENT APPLICATION PER SECTOR AND PER TYPE OF IRREGULARITY - FISHERIES SECTORPACA: 'Simple' (non-fraudulent) irregularitiesPACA: Suspected or established fraudOtherOtherN/A 
 
 
 
 
 
 
3.4.4.3. Cohesion policy - simple irregularities and suspected or established fraud 

Table  18  shows  the  application  of  PACA  for  type  D  in  the  COHESION  POLICY 
SECTOR as regards simple irregularities and suspected or established fraud used by five 
Member States. 

Table 18: Application of PACA for type D – Cohesion policy 

3.5.  Reporting  of  suspected  or  established  fraud  (irregularities  reported  as 

fraudulent)   

Twenty-six Member States replied that they do not request authorisation from the judicial 
authority before reporting suspected fraud, Italy requests it systematically and Romania 
does so on a case by case basis. 

Table  19  shows  the  replies  of  the  Member  States  on  whether  there  is  an  authorisation 
requested from the judicial authority before reporting suspected fraud. 

82 

MSThe date of the first information/documentFinal audit reportOtherEL1ES1LU1PT1FI1MSPTMSReferral to law enforcementReferral to judicial authorityOtherEL1ES1LU1PT1FI1MSELMSESLUPTFIReferral to judicial authorityThe police are asked to investigate if fraud is suspected or established. The National Audit Office is notified.In cases of suspected fraud, the Financial Control Committee (EDEL) refers the case either to the Public Administration Inspectorate/Audit Office under the cooperation protocol of 13 August 2012 or to the judicial authorities.CommentIn the quarter of the date of the first information/document signed by the head of the entity that detected the situation (for example: final report of on-site inspection, final audit report, etc.) At the same time, the public prosecution service will have been notified.DIFFERENT APPLICATION PER SECTOR AND PER TYPE OF IRREGULARITY - COHESION POLICYPACA: 'Simple' (non-fraudulent) irregularitiesOtherIn the quarter of the date of the first information/document signed by the head of the entity that detected the situation (for example: final report of on-site inspection, final audit report, etc.)PACA: Suspected or established fraudOtherCommunication , if any, at the time of referral to the judicial authorities 
 
 
 
 
Table 19: Requesting authorisation to Judicial Authorities before reporting suspected fraud 

3.6.  Reference in national legislation to fraud against the EU budget  

On the specific reference in national legislation to fraud against the EU budget, sixteen 
Member  States90  replied  positively,  while  twelve  Member  States91  replied  ‘no’,  their 
national  legislation  contains  general  definitions  of  the  behaviour  without  any  specific 
reference to the ‘victim’ (the ‘EU financial interests’, in this context). 

Table 20 details the replies provided by Member States. 

90  

91  

Bulgaria,  Czech  Republic,  Denmark,  Greece,  Spain,  Croatia,  Italy,  Cyprus,  Hungary,  Malta,  Portugal,  Romania, 
Slovenia, Slovakia and Sweden. 
Germany, Estonia, France, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Ireland, Austria, Poland, Finland, and the 
United Kingdom. 

83 

MSYES, systematicallyYES, case by caseNOBE1BG1CZ1DK1DE1EE1IE1EL1ES1FR1HR1IT1CY1LV1LT1LU1HU1MT1NL1AT1PL1PT1RO1SI1SK1FI1SE1UK1Suspected or established fraud (irregularities reported as fraudulent) Do you request authorisation from the judicial authority before reporting suspected fraud?  
 
 
 
 
                                                            
Table 20: Specific reference in national legislation to ‘fraud against the EU budget’ 

3.7. 

Internal  system  of  signalling  of  suspected  irregularity,  developed  outside 
Irregularity Management System (IMS), in use 

Fourteen  Member  States92  reported  that  they  use  an  internal  system  of  signalling  of 
suspected irregularity developed outside of IMS93. Ten Member States94 replied that they 
rely solely on IMS to signal suspected irregularities, while four Member States95 replied 
no application of suspected irregularity signalling. 

Table 21 shows the replies of the Member States. 

92  

93  
94  
95  

Belgium,  Bulgaria,  Czech  Republic,  Estonia,  Spain,  Croatia,  Cyprus,  Latvia,  Lithuania,  Luxembourg,  Hungary, 
Malta, Romania and Slovakia. 
the full answers are to be seen on the pp.74-77. 
Germany, Ireland, France, Italy, Netherlands, Austria, Portugal, Slovenia, Finland and Sweden. 
Denmark, Greece, Poland and the United Kingdom. 

84 

MSYESNOBE1BG1CZ1DK1DE1EE1IE1EL1ES1FR1HR1IT1CY1LV1LT1LU1HU1MT1NL1AT1PL1PT1RO1SI1SK1FI1SE1UK1Specific reference in national legislation to fraud against the EU budget 
 
 
 
 
                                                            
Table 21: Use of an internal system of signalling of suspected irregularity (outside IMS) 

The Member States which indicated that they have an internal system outside IMS to signal 
suspected  irregularities  were  requested  to  specify  how  it  functions.  Table  22  shows  the 
detailed replies. 

85 

MSYESNO, we rely on IMSNOBE1BG1CZ1DK1DE1EE1IE1EL1ES1FR1HR1IT1CY1LV1LT1LU1HU1MT1NL1AT1PL1PT1RO1SI1SK1FI1SE1UK1Internal system of signallling of suspected irregularity (developed outside IMS) 
 
 
 
 
Table 22: Answers describing internal systems of signalling suspected irregularities (developed outside IMS) in use in fourteen Member States 

86 

MSYES - Please specify how it functionsBEAGENTSCHAP LANDBOUW EN VISSERIJ (Agency for Agriculture and Fisheries): The technical services' control systems are designed to signal suspected irregularities, e.g. through the sampling method for determining where on-the-spot checks will take place or through the systematic analysis of certain data, e.g. stoppages of operations or recurrences of similar incidents involving the same client. The finance department has a system for listing all letters of formal notice and compensation payments from a specific period. ERDF: The findings of case handlers (relating to the certification of expenditure, below threshold transactions, etc.) are systematically added to an internal list of detected errors stored on a shared network drive. NB: ESF Flanders and the SPW's Structural Funds Coordination Department both answered no to question 15.BGThe national legislation adopts the procedure for administering signals in the Ordinance for establishing procedures for administering irregularities of funds, instruments, and programmes co-financed by the EU. According to the procedure Managing authority is obliged to keep record for any information that is defined as a signal of irregularity. They maintain electronic registers and files with all the documentation concerning a case. All Managing authorities send the registers to AFCOS at a quarterly basis. In that way AFCOS creates a database for signals at national level. Some sectors have electronic systems in which they can insert information for signals and AFCOS has access or can request information from them. These signals are followed up and subsequently a decision is made by the Managing authority whether to establish irregularity or not.CZAll authorities responsible for state administration – including authorities auditing the drawing of EU resources and finance authorities administering taxes and proceedings in cases involving the infringement of budgetary discipline (which encompasses matters relating to the legality of drawing subsidies, including those co-financed by the EU) in accordance with the Tax Code – are legally obliged (under Section 8 of the Code of Criminal Procedure) to report to the competent public prosecutor or police authority any justified suspicion concerning the commission of a criminal act relating inter alia to the drawing of EU resources, where such suspicion arises in the course of their activities. This obligation is incumbent upon all state authorities, irrespective of whether they are part of the IMS system. If such an irregularity (suspected commission of a criminal act) is reported to a police authority or to a public prosecutor, the authorities active in criminal proceedings are legally obliged to investigate such suspicion thoroughly. Following a preliminary investigation, a decision is taken either to file the case (if the statement of the facts does not indicate the possibility that a criminal act has been committed) or to instruct the police authority to initiate criminal proceedings (thereafter supervised by the public prosecutor). If criminal proceedings are initiated, the fact will be reported to OLAF by the Supreme Public Prosecutor’s Office.EEAll project information is held in a web-based information system (SFOS). Any infringement, including suspected fraud, must be entered into the system within 10 working days of the facts having been recorded in an official document (on-the-spot report, final audit report, etc.). All cases of damages amounting to over EUR 10 000 must be uploaded to the IMS.Internal system of signallling of suspected irregularity (developed outside IMS) 
 
 
 
 
87 

MSYES - Please specify how it functionsES(1) For Structural and Cohesion Funds: regardless of the amount of irregular expense, irregularities are recorded in the European Funds national management applications (Fondos 2007 for ERDF; FSE for ESF), in which there is a module for monitoring them. (2) For agricultural funds: there is a system that receives the irregularities communicated by the different paying agencies; the irregularities are recorded in the system and the communication to be imported into the IMS module is extracted from it.HREvery relevant body within the system for managing and controlling of EU funds keeps Register on suspected irregularities which contain information received either anonymously or by identified persons via post, e-mail and telephone. All registers are reported to Service for CombatingIrregularities and Fraud on quarterly basis.CYAn irregularities notification form is filled in and submitted to the competent authority for notification to OLAF.LVThe Managing Authority of EU structural and Cohesion Fund has an internal management information system (MIS) which is used to collect all projects information, including detected irregularities with financial impact (also below threshold) and all suspected fraud and establishedfraud cases. Intermediate bodies collect information in their own systems or documents about signals of irregularities (in other words – possible irregularities) and irregularities without financial impact and inform the managing authority by semi-annual monitoring reports if it is necessary. Inaccordance with the internal procedure set by the Rural Support Service after the evaluation of irregularity or when an undue payments is detected employee who detected the irregularity/undue payment, or employee, to whom it has been determined in accordance with the allocatedfunctions, immediately shall enter the necessary information in Integrated administration and control system sub-module "Irregularity register". The quarterly meeting is organized to review all cases of irregularity, int.al. where there is a suspicion of fraud and to decide whether to reportthem further to OLAF, as an irregularity or suspected fraud. The Latvia-Lithuania Cross-border cooperation Programme and the Estonia - Latvia - Russia Cross Border Cooperation Programme within European Neighbourhood and Partnership Instrument 2007 – 2013 (ETC programmes)have their own data bases where all cases with possible irregularities are collected. Then these cases are investigated and irregularity is approved or not. If case is identified as suspected fraud, than information regarding this case have to be submitted to OLAF. Recovery in all irregularity cases is the same.Internal system of signallling of suspected irregularity (developed outside IMS) 
 
 
 
 
88 

MSYES - Please specify how it functionsLTInformation relating to projects (and also on investigations carried out and irregularities identified) is registered in the computerised information management and monitoring system for the EU Structural Funds (SFMIS). Having conducted their investigations into irregularities, the project administration authorities register the results in the SFMIS and within one month following the end of each quarter provide the managing authority by means of the SFMIS with reports on the irregularities identified during that quarter, along with any updated information on previously identified irregularities where any information has changed. The managing authority, having reviewed the reports provided and taking into account Articles 28–31 and 36 of Regulation (EC) No 1828, which stipulate the cases that must be notified to the European Commission, enters the relevant report information into the information management system and forwards it to the European Commission. The same procedure applies with regard to the 2014–2020 funding period. Certain authorities responsible for administering EU support, for example the National Paying Agency under the Ministry of Agriculture (hereinafter 'the NPA'), also have their own internal systems. Where a suspected irregularity needs to be investigated, the NPA staff member who suspects the irregularity completes a suspected irregularity questionnaire and forwards this using the Document Management System (DMS) to the unit responsible for investigating irregularities. Upon receipt of the questionnaire, the desk officer charged with investigating the irregularity enters the information in the logbook for suspected/identified irregularities located in the system. At the end of the investigation the information is updated and supplemented.LUdepending on the authorityHUThe Irregularity module of the Single Monitoring Information System ensures effective, unified, and transparent handling and monitoring of irregularities relating to projects that have received aid, and the monitoring carried out for the purpose of preparing the official irregularity report submitted to the European Commission, and supports the performance of the reporting duties of various institutions. The public reporting system available at www.anti-lop.hu supports lawful and transparent use of EU funds and offers a way to report and investigate corrupt practices and illegal acts detected in relation to the aid granted, and to inform whistleblowers of the measures taken following their reports.Internal system of signallling of suspected irregularity (developed outside IMS) 
 
 
 
 
89 

MSYES - Please specify how it functionsMTThe Financial Investigations Unit within the Internal Audit and Investigations Department receives all irregularities and cases of suspected fraud from the Managing and Audit Authorities. Then, the Unit analyse all cases received and reports to OLAF via IMS according to set thresholds. Such a centralized set-up, helps the Financial Investigations Unit in conducting its risk assessment to identify areas / cases which deserve to be further investigative work.ROThe authorities responsible for managing European funds are obliged to complete a 'Suspicion of irregularity/Suspicion of fraud' form for all findings with financial implications or possible financial implications and for all referrals meeting legal conditions. The form is submitted to the competent inspection bodies. It is used for all programmes except those for which the European Commission has already approved a form with a different content. The authorities responsible for managing European funds are obliged to record suspicions of irregularities in an Irregularities Register, except in the case of programmes for which the European Commission has already approved a register with a different content. The 'Suspicion of irregularity/Suspicion of fraud" form is completed only for amounts paid by the authorities responsible for managing European funds or by bodies with payment functions acting on their behalf, bodies implementing measures in the field of transport under the ex-ISPA Programme and beneficiaries of projects financed under the European Commission's centralised system from European funds and/or from related national public funds. Under EU regulations and the agreements on the financial management and control of operational programmes, the authorities responsible for managing European funds are obliged to report to the certifying authorities, using the 'Suspicion of irregularity/Suspicion of fraud' form, all cases which they have referred to the Romanian Government's Anti-Fraud Department ('DLAF'). The authorities responsible for managing European funds are obliged to record suspicions of fraud in the Irregularities Register.SKThe IT monitoring system (ITMS) is a central information system for the registration, subsequent processing, export and monitoring of data on programming and on project and financial management for the Structural Funds and the Cohesion Fund and communication with grant applicants/ beneficiaries. It also contains part of the register of irregularities. These are registered as part of the project management information. An irregularity report is subsequently generated, and its creation is linked to the legal implications for the entities involved. In the field of irregularities, the system is also linked to the accounting records. Within 15 calendar days of the date on which the irregularity was detected, the Managing Authority submits the approved irregularity report from the ITMS to the Certifying Authority, the Intermediate Body under the Managing Authority, the Paying Unit and the Beneficiary. The Audit Authority and cooperating bodies submit the approved irregularity report from the ITMS to the Certifying Authority, the Managing Authority and the Paying Unit: a) in the event of an irregularity with financial impact and a systemic irregularity, by the 15th calendar day of the month following the month in which the system audit/operational audit report was received by the audited entity; b) in the event of an irregularity with no financial impact, where the measures adopted  in respect of the irregularity have not been adequately implemented, by the 15th calendar day of the month following the month in which a report on the verification of compliance with the adopted measures and the taking into account of recommendations was drawn up. The MA forwards irregularities with a financial impact on the statement of EU expenditure to the Government Office of the Slovak Republic (AFCOS), which declares to the OLAF office irregularities subject to the reporting requirement. In the event of irregularities relating to the CAP, these are registered and entered in the accounts using the SAP economic information system. For the CAP sector, the register of irregularities is drawn up in the AGIS information system and the accounts for irregularities in the ISUF system.Internal system of signallling of suspected irregularity (developed outside IMS) 
 
 
 
 
 
3.8. 

Follow-up  concerning  cases  reported  to  the  European  Commission  in  the 
Irregularity Management System (IMS) under criminal proceedings 

On the follow-up concerning cases under criminal proceedings reported to the European 
Commission  in  the  IMS,  eight  Member  States96  replied  that  they  proceed  so  ‘after 
indictment’, one Member State (Austria) replied ‘after the initial sentence’, six Member 
States97  replied  ‘after  the  definitive  sentence’  (final  court  decision)  and  seventeen 
Member  States98  specified  ‘other’  circumstances99,  including  more  of  the  above 
mentioned  options.  It  is  to  be  noted  that  there  are  certain  differences  concerning  the 
reporting periodicity, also in relation to the role of the Public Prosecutor, on the basis of 
completion of each stage of criminal proceedings, or depending on the funds involved. 

Table 23 shows the follow-up stage of cases under criminal proceedings reported by the 
Member States to the EC via the Irregularity Management System (IMS) and Table 24 
provides the detailed information concerning the ‘Other’ replies. 

Table 23: follow-up stage of cases under criminal investigation via IMS 

96  
97  
98  

99  

Belgium, Denmark, Germany, Greece, Latvia, Poland, Romania, Finland 
Spain, Luxembourg, Hungary, Malta, Slovenia, Slovakia 
Bulgaria,  Czech  Republic,  Estonia,  Ireland,  France,  Croatia,  Italy,  Cyprus,  Lithuania,  Netherlands,  Portugal, 
Sweden and the United Kingdom 
full answers are on pp.80-83 

90 

MSAfter indictment After initial sentence After definitive sentence - Final court decision OtherBE1111BG1CZ1DK11DE111EE1IE1EL111ES1FR1HR1IT1CY1LV111LT1LU1HU1MT1NL1AT111PL111PT1RO111SI11SK1FI111SE1UK1Follow-up concerning cases reported to the EC which are under criminal proceedings 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                            
Table 24: ‘Other’ stages of the follow-up reporting reported by thirteen Member States 

91 

MSOtherBEAll significant stages in the case are notified. Each stage of the procedure is covered by a follow-up sheet.BGThe completion of every stage of the criminal proceedings procedure are notified in the IMS. The follow-up is notified in IMS after the completion of every stage of the criminal proceedings (exp. end of pre-trial proceedings, court decision, appeal etc).CZA special report on the state of all new and previously notified criminal-law irregularities (current criminal proceedings in cases relating to the EU's financial interests) is sent regularly (every quarter-year) to the European Commission or to OLAF. Criminal-law irregularities are notified – through inclusion in the quarterly report – after criminal proceedings have actually been initiated, the information being subsequently updated as the proceedings (which may include the initiation of criminal prosecution, the bringing of charges or the delivery of a verdict) unfold. The report is drawn up and dispatched by the Supreme Public Prosecutor’s Office, which for this purpose has appropriate mechanisms to satisfy the information requirement within the public-prosecution system and works closely with – inter alia – the Czech police force's Corruption and Financial Crime Detection Unit. Furthermore, the Supreme Public Prosecutor’s Office – as the sole AFCOS network contact point – regularly communicates with OLAF and supplies it with information concerning criminal proceedings in accordance with OLAF's specific requirements. EEFor all cases, follow-up reports are submitted regularly (when new developments occur) to both the national database and the IMS, until the cases are closed.IEOption a (after indictment) applies except in the case of ERDF and ESF where in the case of suspected fraud, all related expenditure is removed from the subsequent claim to safeguard the EU budget. As a seperate exercise, the member state follows up on those cases to protect the national budget.Follow-up concerning cases reported to the EC which are under criminal proceedings 
 
 
 
 
92 

MSOtherFRAll cases of irregularity are forwarded to OLAF. Pursuant to Article 40 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the Public Prosecutor of the Republic receives the complaints and denunciations either directly via the paying agencies or via the control bodies. The Public Prosecutor decides to: either launch legal proceedings or implement a procedure other than legal proceedings pursuant to Articles 41-1 and 41-2 or to dismiss the proceedings where warranted by the circumstances of the case. There is both a criminal and administrative follow-up to cases.HRWithin the IMS, Service for Combating Irregularities and Fraud notifies all stages of criminal proceedings (starting with stages before indictment according to the Criminal Procedure Act (OJ 152/08, 76/09, 80/11, 121/11, 91/12, 143/12, 56/13, 145/13, 152/14))ITCases can be entered in IMS immediately with the classification code IRQ2. Then, when one of the conditions described in the reply to 12.a is fulfilled, the cases can be reclassified with the code IRQ3 but updating the relevant IMS forms under Article 5.CYAGRICULTURAL FUNDS: Notification as the case progresses. STRUCTURAL FUNDS: Notification once the case is closed.LTThere are no provisions in the legislation governing the administration of the EU Structural Funds relating to the necessity to notify the European Commission only when a specific stage of court proceedings has been launched/concluded. With regard to information on any case which has already been notified to the European Commission (and also cases where court proceedings are ongoing), where new significant information emerges (for example, where the court has adopted a decision not to bring a case, or has adopted a decision in the case, etc.), an updated report on the infringement must be drawn up and notified to the Commission in accordance with standard procedures.NLThis has never happened. Therefore not applicable.Follow-up concerning cases reported to the EC which are under criminal proceedings 
 
 
 
 
93 

MSOtherATNo information.PLReporting on follow-up takes place in accordance with the requirements of the relevant EU regulations. This means that in the wake of irregularities that have already been reported (IRQ2) national bodies submit follow-up reports when there is a change in classification (to IRQ3), informing the Commission of the administrative or criminal proceedings initiated in respect of suspected fraud and then of major developments in the cases, e.g. that proceedings have been concluded by a final court decision (IRQ5) and penalties imposed or that proceedings have been closed. Additional comment: As when the very first report on a case contained information on suspected fraud (IRQ3), subsequent reports concerning the case are sent as above, in accordance with the requirements of the relevant regulations, which means that the Commission receives information on major developments in administrative or criminal proceedings aimed at imposing penalties, i.e. that proceedings have been concluded by a final court decision (IRQ5) and penalties or that proceedings have been closed.PTWith regard to cases involving amounts to be recovered, OLAF is notified of all the stages and/or decisions considered relevant occurring during the judicial or criminal proceedings, e.g. indictment/dismissal;  opening of an inquiry/decision to adjudicate/decision not to adjudicate; application to join proceedings as a civil party; lodging of a claim for civil damages; judgement; conviction/acquittal decision; lodging of an appeal; decisions on appeals; etc.SIWhenever there is any substantive change in irregularities that have already been reported, irrespective of the stage or progress of the procedure, the individual Ministries responsible report this to the managing authority, which then enters it in the IMS.SETo our knowledge, currently no cases under criminal proceedings are notified in IMS.UKAs information becomes available from the paying agencies, the UK Co-ordinating Body will update the IMSFollow-up concerning cases reported to the EC which are under criminal proceedings 
 
 
 
 
3.9.  Reporting of irregularities where the beneficiary is a public authority/body  

All  Member  States  replied  that  they  apply  equal  treatment  of  the  reporting  of 
irregularities  where  the  beneficiary  is  a  public  authority/body,  as  in  other  cases, 
irrespective of the type of beneficiary.  

94