COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT Accompanying the document REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN COURT OF AUDITORS, THE COUNCIL AND THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT Member States' replies to the Court of Auditors' 2014 Annual Report
Date: 2016-02-26
Institutions: Directorate-General for Budget, European Commission
Subjects: EU Member State, European Court of Auditors, activity report, control of State aid, financial management, general budget (EU), implementation of the budget, management audit

EUROPEAN 
COMMISSION 

Brussels, 26.2.2016  
SWD(2016) 48 final 

COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT 
Accompanying the document 

REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN COURT OF 
AUDITORS, THE COUNCIL AND THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT 

Member States' replies to the Court of Auditors' 2014 Annual Report 

{COM(2016) 112 final} 

EN 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
  
 
Article  162(5)  of  the  Financial  Regulation1  states  that  as  soon  as  the  European  Court  of 
Auditors  (the  Court)  has  transmitted  its  annual  report,  the  Commission  shall  inform  the 
Member  States  concerned  immediately  of  the  details  of  that  report  which  relate  to 
management of the funds for which they are responsible. Member States should reply within 
sixty  days  and  the  Commission  then  transmits  a  summary  of  the  replies  to  the  Court,  the 
European Parliament and the Council before 29 February of the following year. 

Following  publication  of  the  Court's  annual  report  for  the  budgetary  year  2014,  the 
Commission  duly  informed  Member  States  of  details  of  the  report.  This  information  was 
presented in the form of a letter and three annexes to be completed by each Member State, as 
well  as  the  accompanying  gudielines  on  the  preparation  and  presentation  of  replies  to  the 
questionnaires.  Annex  I  was  a  questionnaire  on  the  paragraphs  referring  to  the  individual 
Member States; annex II was a questionnaire on audit findings which refer to each Member 
State and annex III was a questionnaire on topical findings related to shared management for 
DAS 2014. 

This Staff Working Document (SWD), which comprises the Member States' replies to Annex 
I and Annex III , accompanies the report from the Commission "Member States' replies to the 
European Court of auditors' 2014 annual report2. 

1 Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 966/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2012 on 
the financial rules applicable to the general budget of the Union and repealing Council Regulation (EC, 
Euratom) No 1605/2002. OJ L 298, 26.10.2012, p. 1. 
2 The replies to Annex II are not included in the SWD as they concern individual SPFs sent to Member States. 

2

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
CONTENT-   please, use hyperlinks for quick navigation through the document 

ANNEX I 

    ANNEX III A 

CHAPTER 1 – The statement of assurance and supporting 
information 

CHAPTER 2 – Budgetary and financial management 

CHAPTER 3 – Getting results from the EU budget 

CHAPTER 4 – Revenue 

CHAPTER 5 – ‘Competitiveness for growth and jobs’ 

CHAPTER 6 – ‘Economic, social and territorial cohesion’ 

CHAPTER 7 – ‘Natural resources’ 

AUSTRIA 

BELGIUM 

GREECE 

ROMANIA 

HUNGARY 

SLOVAKIA 

BULGARIA 

IRELAND 

SLOVENIA 

CROATIA 

CYPRUS 

ITALY 

LATVIA 

SPAIN 

SWEDEN 

CZECH  REPUBLIC 

LITHUANIA 

UK 

DENMARK 

LUXEMBOURG

ESTONIA 

FINLAND 

FRANCE 

MALTA 

NETHERLANDS

POLAND 

GERMANY 

PORTUGAL 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
ANNEX I 
Paragraphs in the 2014 Annual Report and for each of the 2014 findings made by the Court referring to each 
particular country 

CHAPTER 1 – The statement of assurance and supporting information 

Paragraph 

Observation in the 2014 
Annual Report 

Member State reply 

1.8. 

Issues affecting the accounts  Germany:  action taken: ; action completed: ; Completion date: 

The judgments delivered by the ECJ on 24 June 2015 regarding Berlin and Thuringia and annulling 
Commission decisions on extrapolated and flat-rate financial corrections totalling €94m. in the 1994-1999 
period are now available. Payments have not yet been made by the Commission. Other actions are pending 
before the EGC in the same matter, having been adjourned until the ECJ took its decision on Berlin and 
Thuringia. 

Spain:  action taken: ; action completed: ; Completion date: 
The reference to Spain in the footnote concerns the annulment of three Commission decisions imposing 
financial corrections on three OPs for the period 1994-1999. This reduction in assistance will have to be 
reimbursed by the Commission to the Member State. We understand that no measures need be taken by Spain 
to respond to the observations of the ECA. 
Greece:  action taken: ; action completed: ; Completion date: 

France:  action taken: NO ; action completed: NO ; Completion date: 

Concernant le constat de la Cour sur le non recouvrement des montants auprès des agriculteurs, les autorités 
françaises souhaitent apporter les précisions suivantes. Les constats de la Commission qui ont donné lieu à 

4

Box 1.2. 

Box 1.3. 

Example of improvement in 
management and control 
systems — Greece: Cleaning 
up the LPIS 

Example of corrections 
resulting from conformity 
clearance procedures 

 
 
 
Box 1.4. 

Example of corrections 
resulting in extra-spending: 
Romania ESF 

correction, sont des constats qui portent sur des « défaillances » affectant les procédures  de mise en œuvre de 
la réglementation européenne par les autorités françaises. Par ailleurs, comme le précise la Cour elle-même, 
certaines corrections font l'objet d'un recours devant le TUE, les autorités françaises étant en désaccord avec les 
services de la Commission sur l'interprétation de la réglementation européenne. 

Romania:  action taken: YES ; action completed: NO ; Completion date: 

For the Sectoral Operational Programme Human Resources Development since 2012 Romania has applied a 25 
% correction to all expenditure on salaries, and submitted to the EC. In 2015 the corrective measures 
undertaken at the level of the Member State were individual corrections. With a 7.5 % flat rate correction laid 
down in the Memorandum approved at the meeting of Government of 28 July 2015 to correct the expenditure 
related to the calls for projects launched after 2012. 

Annex 1.5.  Frequncy of detected errors in 
audit sampling 

Austria:  action taken: YES ; action completed: NO ; Completion date: 

Belgium:  action taken: NO ; action completed: ; Completion date: 

La Wallonie prend acte du rapport final de la Cour.  Elle constate que les erreurs quantifiées sont in fine 
marginales.  Elle regrette toutefois que certains de ses arguments n’aient pas été pris en considération par la 
Cour sans réelle motivation pour les autres constatations. 

Bulgaria:  action taken: ; action completed: ; Completion date: 

Ministry of Labour and Social Policy (MLSP): As part of the Operational Programme “Human Resource 
Development”, no weaknesses and errors have been identified for the 2007–2013 audit period. 

Croatia:  action taken: ; action completed: ; Completion date: 

Cyprus:  action taken: ; action completed: ; Completion date: 

Czech Republic:  action taken: YES ; action completed: ; Completion date: 

Irrelevant – there is no error involved. 

Denmark:  action taken: ; action completed: ; Completion date: 

The Annex presents an overview of errors identified in the Member States and does not show clearly what 

5

 
 
 
action has been taken. 

Estonia:  action taken: YES; action completed: YES ; Completion date: 2015 

Finland:  action taken: YES ; action completed: NO ; Completion date: 21.12.2015 

Some of the recoveries have been carried out; the most recent due date was 21 December 2015. 

Germany:  action taken: ; action completed: ; Completion date: 

Noted. More details under the relevant points in Annexes I and II. 

Greece:  action taken: YES ; action completed: ; Completion date: 

Hungary:  action taken: NO ; action completed: ; Completion date: 

Factual finding, we have no comment to make. 

Ireland:  action taken: YES ; action completed: NO ; Completion date: 

With regard to heading 2, this issue is being addressed via the Action Plan on EAFRD and therefore is a work 
in progress. With regard to heading 1, no errors were found in Ireland’s audit sampling, this is primarily due to 
the fact that Ireland’s funding programmes are primarily channelled through government departments and/or 
state bodies and as such are subject to full national controls and audits. 

Italy:  action taken: ; action completed: ; Completion date: 

Latvia:  action taken: YES ; action completed: YES ; Completion date: 19 February 2015 

With regard to the error identified in connection with MFF heading No 2 'Natural Resources' (Chapter 7 – 
Natural resources, PF 6625), on 19 February 2015 the Paying Agency corrected the declaration for the period 
16 October 2014 to 31 December 2014.  

With regard to the error identified in connection with the ERDF (chapter 6 – Economic, social and territorial 
cohesion, PF 6643), the Member State is not required to undertake additional measures because the 
recommendation resulting from the audit was addressed to the European Commission. 

Lithuania:  action taken: ; action completed: ; Completion date: 

6

 
 
 
Luxembourg:  action taken: ; action completed: ; Completion date: 

Malta:  action taken: YES ; action completed: NO ; Completion date: 

At present, in the two cases under this observation where reference is made to Malta, the Planning and 
Priorities Coordination Division (PPCD) is still at the stage of receiving a formal letter from the European 
Commission. Consequently, the date of completion is not yet known. 

Netherlands:  action taken: YES ; action completed: ; Completion date: 

The Netherlands considers it useful that the Court of Auditors should include this table in the annual report so 
as to provide greater transparency regarding the underlying data on which the Court bases the statement of 
assurance. The Netherlands would also welcome a multiannual survey. However, the limitations of the table 
should be made clearer in the table itself, which should point out these are not error rates per Member State. 

Poland:  action taken: YES ; action completed: ; Completion date: 

note does not contain detailed allegations against Poland 

Portugal:  action taken: YES ; action completed: NO; Completion date: 

The situations identified are currently being corrected. 

Romania:  action taken: YES ; action completed: NO ; Completion date: 

MEF: For the purposes of reducing the rate of error for SOPHRD projects at the level of the managing 
authority, a number of measures were implemented as from 2014, as follows: 

-Extending Action Web information system through the development of new modules, in order to detail the 
types of costs and the uploading of documents related to the application for reimbursement in the computer 
application; 

-Developing and implementing a system of alerts for the identification, investigation and treatment of errors in 
the computer system; 

-Revising the Operation Selection Procedure; 

-Reviewing the Methodology for the assessment of financing applications; 

7

 
 
 
-Internal Instruction No 105 applicable to the IB governing the request for clarification at the time evaluation 
of projects; 

-Instruction No 104 on the regulation of matters relating to the contracting process and amending SOPHRD 
financing contracts; 

-Developing the methodology for checking the specific experience and for assessing the related financial 
impact; 

-The new version of the General Conditions in the Applicant’s Guide for 2015, which contain provisions 
referring to the possibility to request clarification in the financing application assessment phase; 

-The revision of the Financial Management Procedure, in particular the specific subsections, with a view to 
developing a verification instrument for the existence of overlapping duties/responsibilities for items budgeted 
in the project, where the reference documents developed by each expert in the project were the activity reports; 

-Instruction No 103 on the regulation of matters relating to the monitoring process for the implementation of 
SOPHRD financing contracts. 

Slovakia:  action taken: YES ; action completed: YES ; Completion date: 

Ministry of Transport, Construction and Regional Development – Audit PF 6091 DAS 2013 was conducted on 
the Operational Programme Transport in March 2014. Once action had been taken by the managing authority, 
the audit was closed further to a DG REGIO letter of 7 October 2015, reference number Ares(2015) 4136726 
(see the email attachment). All of this audit’s findings were closed by DG REGIO without any ineligible 
expenditure being identified. The Operational Programme Transport’s MA already provided information on 
Audit PF 6091 DAS 2013 in December 2014 in relation to the European Court of Auditors’ 2013 Annual 
Report. 

Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development – the Ministry notes that action was taken and completed in 
response to the type of infringement. The way in which the action was taken is described below (Annex II). 

Slovenia:  action taken: YES ; action completed: ; Completion date: 

Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Food (MKGP), European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development 

8

 
 
 
(EAFRD): Slovenia regularly monitors the error rate for rural development measures (EAFRD) in the 
framework of the annual reports on the implementation of the rural development programme, the reports on the 
control statistics and the report of the paying agency to the managing authority on errors detected for the 
previous calendar year. For intervention in the area of the error rate, a special task force to reduce the error rate 
was appointed by order of the Minister for the implementation of the rural development programme for the 
period 2007-2013, which includes representatives of the Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Food (MKGP), 
the Agency of the Republic of Slovenia for Agricultural Markets and Rural Development (AAMRD) and the 
Chamber of Agriculture and Forestry of Slovenia (CAFS). The functioning of the special groups continues in 
the period 2014-2020. Slovenia periodically (at least once a year) reports to the European Commission (DG 
AGRI) on the activities of the managing authority and the paying agency with regard to activities carried out 
within the context of the implementation of the action plan to reduce the error rate. In addition, the error rate is 
discussed with the European Commission in the annual review meeting. 

Spain:  action taken: ; action completed: ; Completion date: 

Sweden:  action taken: ; action completed: ; Completion date: 

This comment does not require Sweden to take action. 

United Kingdom:  action taken: YES ; action completed: NO ; Completion date: 

This table reports the number of errors detected in the audit sampling for 2014. As the ECA states, the 
examples provided in the annual report are for illustrative purposes and demonstrate the most typical errors 
found, and do not form a basis for conclusions to be drawn on the Member States, beneficiary states and/or 
regions concerned.  

In relation to the serious errors identified in natural resources spending, the necessary recovery action or 
sanction has either been completed or is underway in order to safeguard EU funds. In relation to the serious 
error in ERDF, the ERDF Managing Authority has responded to the preliminary findings of the Court and has 
contested the Court’s interim findings, providing further information. The European Court Of Auditors has not 
yet issued its definitive position in respect of this potential error, which is expected in February 2016. 

9

 
 
 
 
Paragraph 

2.17. 

Observation in the 2014 
Annual Report 

Backlogs in the absorption of 
multiannual European 
Structural and Investment 
(ESI) funds are significant 

CHAPTER 2 – Budgetary and financial management 

Member State reply 

Croatia:  action taken: YES ; action completed: NO ; Completion date: 31 December 2016 

The managing authorities prepare detailed quarterly reports on the status of implementation, which are 
submitted to the European Commission (DG Regio), and include all the information required under the Action 
Plan to accelerate implementation of operational programmes financed by the ERDF and CF in the period 
2007-2013 (status of physical and financial implementation, review of user support measures, implementation 
of on-the-spot checks, the commercial status of contracts for individual projects, the status of administrative 
capacity, etc.). Thereafter, at meetings or video conferences (between the managing authorities, the certifying 
authority and the DG Regio Unit for Croatia) the information is discussed in the context of taking all necessary 
measures to ensure proper utilisation of the OPs. Reporting began in the first quarter of 2015 and will run until 
the end of the financial perspective i.e. until the end of 2016. 

The managing authority prepares quarterly financial reports on the status of implementation, which are 
submitted to the European Commission (DG EMPL), and which include all required information related to the 
implementation of the operational programme financed by the ESF in the period 2007 2013. 

2.18. 

Backlogs in the absorption of 
multiannual European 
Structural and Investment 
(ESI) funds 

Czech Republic:  action taken: YES ; action completed: ; Completion date: 

Several actions have been taken, some of which remain ongoing, while others have come to an end (e.g. the 
submission of a request for project phasing between the programming periods 2007-2013 and 2014-2020, 
programme revisions, the launch of new calls, project implementation extensions, more extensive 
communication with grantees, enhanced risk management).  

Italy:  action taken: ; action completed: ; Completion date: 

Poland:  action taken: YES ; action completed: ; Completion date: 

10

 
 
 
 
Note does not contain allegations against Poland 

Romania:  action taken: YES ; action completed: NO ; Completion date: 

MDRAP: The managing authority for the regional operational programme has taken the following measures  

to increase the degree of absorption: 

— the introduction of a mechanism for the settlement of payment claims instead of reimbursement; 

— ensuring the monthly funds necessary for the payments to the beneficiaries of payments of privatisation; 

— approval of additional contracting from axes level to programme level; 

— supporting financial corrections from the State budget for beneficiaries whose public procurement contracts 
were approved by UCVAP and ANRMAP. 

MEF: Measures taken in order to increase the absorption of EU funds: 

-Ensuring the funds necessary for the payments to beneficiaries, given the gap between expenditure 
statement/claim to the EC and the receipts; 

-Identification and promotion of retrospective projects, i.e. projects initially financed from national sources or 
other sources (including IFIs), which are to be settled from EU funds, by their approval under Environment 
Sectoral Operational Programme 2007-2013 and Transport Operational Programme 2007-2013 in order to fully 
attract the European funds available.  

-Reducing the deadline from 45 working days to 20 working days to notify the beneficiary of the payment for 
the expenditure authorised in the refund application or, in the case of direct payments, to notify the beneficiary 
of authorising the expenditure in the refund application. 

-Establishing a mechanism for direct settlement of the applications for payment to local beneficiaries failing to 
settle invoices for goods/services/works received, accepted for payment, in order to ensure the financial flow to 
enable timely implementation of projects. 

-Extension of the applicability of the settlement mechanism for the payment claim to all categories of 
beneficiaries of projects financed from European grants, including private beneficiaries, failing to settle 

11

 
 
 
invoices for goods/services/works received and accepted for payment; 

-Training measures and increasing the administrative capacity of beneficiaries in accessing European funds; 

-Setting the percentage of additional contracting at operational programme level and not only at priority axis 
level 

-Instructions/orders with impact on the implementation of projects financed from European funds. 

The measures taken by the competent authorities have led to a structural improvement of the management of 
the European funds, leading to an increased rate of absorption and to a more efficient use of the funds. 

Spain:  action taken: ; action completed: ; Completion date: 
With regard to the ESF, the situation has improved significantly in 2015 and therefore there is considered to be 
no real risk of loss of funds. According to the quarterly implementation report submitted by the managing 
authority (third quarter of 2015): 

-Interim payment requests processed: 81.30 %. 

-Total expenditure actually paid: 94.97 %. 

-Total execution (approved, committed or paid expenditure): 105.38 %. 

Furthermore, like the Commission, the Member State is actively working on the adoption of the new 
programmes for the period 2014-2020. Throughout 2015, most of the ESIF programmes for the new period are 
being approved. This is a considerable improvement on the situation in 2014, when there was a clear delay in 
this aspect. 

Graph 2.4.  Absorption in % and totals of 

Austria: action taken: YES ; action completed: NO ; Completion date: 

2007-2013 MFF ESI funds 

Belgium:  action taken: ; action completed: ; Completion date: 

Bulgaria: action taken: ; action completed: ; Completion date: 

Croatia: action taken: YES ; action completed: NO ; Completion date: 
The managing authority prepares quarterly financial reports on the status of implementation, which are 
submitted to the European Commission (DG EMPL), and which include all required information related to the 

12

 
 
 
 
 
implementation of the operational programme financed by the ESF in the period 2007-2013. 

Cyprus: action taken: ; action completed: ; Completion date: 

Czech Republic: action taken: YES ; action completed: ; Completion date: 
Several actions have been taken, some of which remain ongoing, while others have come to an end (e.g. project phasing 
between the programming periods 2007-2013 and 2014-2020, programme revisions, the launch of new calls, project 
implementation extensions, more extensive communication with grantees, enhanced risk management).   

Denmark: action taken: YES ; action completed: ; Completion date: 
Requests for payment from the Regional Development Fund and Social Fund that exceed the 95 % limit, see 
Article 79 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1083/2006 for the 2007–2013 programming period, have been 
submitted to the Commission. With regard to the utilisation rate for EAFRD and EFF, the weighted total for 
the two funds is expected to be 97 % by the end of the year. 

Estonia: action taken: YES ; action completed: YES ; Completion date: 

Finland: action taken: ; action completed: ; Completion date: 

France:  action taken: YES ; action completed: NO ; Completion date: Clôture des programmes 2007-2013 
Pour les programmes opérationnels - PO FEDER 2007-2013, les données de la Commission européenne et de la Cour des 
comptes européenne, au 31/12/2014, sont inférieures à celles enregistrées par la France à la même période. La France 
effectue en effet son suivi sur la base du montant des dépenses certifiées par l’autorité de certification, tandis que les 
données de la Commission européenne sont issues des derniers appels de fonds et sont, par conséquent, moins élevées. 
Au 01/01/2015 (état financier le plus proche de la date du 31/12/2014), pour l’objectif « compétitivité régionale et emploi 
», le taux de certification s’élevait à 83,45 % de la maquette financière UE et 83,18 % du coût total de la maquette 
financière. Pour l’objectif « convergence », il s’élevait à 69,61 % de la maquette financière UE et 68,36 % du coût total 
de la maquette. 
Par ailleurs, afin d’anticiper la période de clôture, toutes les autorités de gestion des PO FEDER 2007-2013 ont mis en 
œuvre, dès la fin 2014 et tout au long de l’année 2015, des plans d’action destinés à s’assurer que l’intégralité des fonds 
européens mis à la disposition des régions sera utilisée. 
Pour le PO FSE CRE, au 31.12.2014, le  pourcentage des crédits FSE déclaré dans un appel de fonds à la Commission 
européenne s’élevait à 74,5% du programme, le taux de certification des crédits FSE à cette date est de 77,4%.Pour le 
FSE des PO Convergence, le taux de déclaration des crédits FSE s’élevait à cette date à 78,6% et le taux de certification à 
79,35%. 

13

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Germany: action taken: ; action completed: ; Completion date: 
Noted 

Greece: action taken: NO ; action completed: ; Completion date: 
Part of the actions has been completed. 

Hungary: action taken: NO ; action completed: ; Completion date: 
Factual finding, we have no comment to make. 

Ireland: action taken: YES ; action completed: NO ; Completion date: 

Ireland’s absorption level is currently 90% (the current EU28 average is 87.9%), and is on track to make final drawdown 
and enter the closure process. The scatter chart beside is misleading as it gives the commitments and payments in billions 
of euros – Ireland has a comparatively small ESIF commitment, so appears negligible on the graph. 

Italy: action taken: ; action completed: ; Completion date: 

Latvia: action taken: YES ; action completed: YES ; Completion date: 5 December 2014 

To prevent the risk of losing EU fund financing in 2014 the projects concerned were transferred from the operational 
programme Infrastructure and Services to the operational programme Entrepreneurship and Innovations. These measures 
were coordinated and on 5 December 2014 they were endorsed by the European Commission (Commission letter 
Ares(2014)4079662 of 5 December 2014). Latvia is above average among the EU-28 in terms of attaining financial 
targets. Since the project transfer in 2014 there are no longer any indications that EU fund financing will not be used in 
full. 

Lithuania: action taken: YES ; action completed: NO ; Completion date: 
The report of the European Court of Auditors (‘the Court’) depicts Lithuania as a Member State making best use of the 
funds of the European Union (‘the EU’) structural and investment funds for 2007-2013.  
In implementing the operational programmes for the 2007-2013 financing period (the Operational Programme for 
Economic Growth approved by Commission Decision No C(2007)3740 of 30 July 2007 as last amended by Commission 
Decision No C(2014)3643 of 2 June 2014, the Operational Programme for the Promotion of Cohesion approved by 
Commission Decision No C(2007)3738 of 30 June 2007 as last amended by Commission Decision No C(2014)3476 of 
26 May 2014, the Operational Programme for the Development of Human Resources approved by Commission Decision 

14

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
No C(2007)4475 of 24 September 2007 as last amended by Commission Decision No C(2013)6262 of 26 September 
2013 and the Operational Programme for Technical Assistance approved by Commission Decision No C(2007)6717 of 
18 December 2007 as last amended by Commission Decision No C(2013)6269 of 1 October 2013), Lithuania has used 
about EUR 6.6 billion (98% of the EU funds allocated). The remaining share to be used by 31 December 2015 is about 
2% of the EU funds allocated. 
The high absorption rate of EU structural funds in Lithuania is a result of continuous monitoring of the use of funds, 
responsible planning of funds in line with the country’s needs and monitoring of high-risk projects co-financed by the EU 
funds (‘projects’). 

Luxembourg: action taken: ; action completed: ; Completion date: 
En ligne avec la planification 

Malta: action taken: YES ; action completed: NO ; Completion date: 31/03/2017 
The procedures provided for — such as auditing, certification, closure work, etc., — are currently ongoing in 
relation to payments that have already been made and eventually those that are expected to be processed by the 
end of December 2015. 

Netherlands: action taken: YES ; action completed: ; Completion date: 
No remarks concerning the Netherlands 

Poland: action taken: ; action completed: ; Completion date: 
Note does not contain allegations against Poland 

Portugal: action taken: ; action completed: ; Completion date: 
The observation is in line with facts and does not require comment. 

Romania: action taken: YES ; action completed: NO ; Completion date: 

MEF-MA SOP HRD: intents to stop the NEETs phenomenon in Europe, and DG HCP examines the use of retroactive 
financial assistance in order to maximise the performance of SOPHRD 2007-2013 (PA 2 and PA 5) in this priority 
segment on the European agenda for 2020. 

Slovakia: action taken: YES ; action completed: NO ; Completion date: 
Action to draw on EU resources is taken in collaboration with a Commission working party established in 2014. The 

15

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
results of the action are periodically monitored at joint meetings between Slovakia and the Commission. 

Slovenia: action taken: YES ; action completed: ; Completion date: 

Spain: action taken: YES ; action completed: YES ; Completion date: 12 October 2015 
EFF and FIFG: Reprogramming of the financial plan, approved by Commission Decision of 12 October 2015. 

Sweden: action taken: ; action completed: ; Completion date: 
This comment does not require Sweden to take action. 

United Kingdom: action taken: YES ; action completed: ; Completion date: 
This graph shows absorption rates for EU countries. 

Graph 2.5.  Outstanding commitments of 

Austria: action taken: YES ; action completed: NO ; Completion date: 

ESI funds 

Belgium:  action taken: ; action completed: ; Completion date: 

Bulgaria: action taken: ; action completed: ; Completion date: 

Croatia: action taken: ; action completed: ; Completion date: 

Cyprus: action taken: YES ; action completed: ; Completion date: 
The managing authority (DG EPCD) is currently preparing a management and control system for the integrated 
information system, and also preparing to assign responsibilities to competent bodies to enable the inclusion of 
projects and the certification of expenditure within the framework of the programmes co-financed by the funds: 
ERDF, CF, EMFF and ESF by the deadline for undertaking the commitments for 2014 laid down in the 
relevant regulations (31 December 2017). 

Czech Republic: action taken: YES ; action completed: ; Completion date: 
Several actions have been taken, some of which remain ongoing, while others have come to an end (e.g. project phasing 
between the programming periods 2007-2013 and 2014-2020, programme revisions, the launch of new calls, project 
implementation extensions, more extensive communication with grantees, enhanced risk management).   

16

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Denmark: action taken: YES ; action completed: ; Completion date: 
Requests for payment from the Regional Development Fund and Social Fund that exceed the 95 % limit, see 
Article 79 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1083/2006 for the 2007–2013 programming period, have been 
submitted to the Commission. With regard to the utilisation rate for EAFRD and EFF, the weighted total for 
the two funds is expected to be 97 % by the end of the year. 

Estonia: action taken: YES ; action completed: YES ; Completion date: 

Finland: action taken: ; action completed: ; Completion date:  

France:  action taken: YES; action completed: NO ; Completion date: Clôture des programmes 2007-2013 
Le montant des engagements restant à liquider au titre du FEDER, au 31 décembre 2014, est satisfaisant. 

Germany: action taken: ; action completed: ; Completion date: 
As matters stand, it seems likely that there will be almost no unutilised amounts from the ERDF in the 2007-
2013 programming period. Payments still to be called will be requested by means of payment claims to be 
made in the years 2015 and 2016 and with the final claim for payment. 

Greece: action taken: ; action completed: ; Completion date: 

Hungary: action taken: NO ; action completed: ; Completion date: 
Factual finding, we have no comment to make. 

Ireland: action taken: NO ; action completed: NO ; Completion date: 

ESIF support as a whole makes a small portion of Ireland’s government expenditure, so the outstanding commitments 
make up a very small proportion of government expenditure. In terms of drawing down our outstanding commitments, 
Ireland does not foresee any issues impacting closure of our ERDF and ESF programmes for 2007-2013. 

Italy: action taken: ; action completed: ; Completion date: 

Latvia: action taken: YES ; action completed: YES ; Completion date: 5 December 2014 

See explanation provided under observation 1 

Lithuania: action taken: ; action completed: ; Completion date: 

17

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Luxembourg: action taken: ; action completed: ; Completion date: 
En ligne avec la planification 

Malta: action taken: YES ; action completed: NO ; Completion date: 31/12/2015 
The outstanding commitments have been progressively decreasing, meaning that that the percentage thereof 
relative to general Government expenditure has been steadily falling. 

Netherlands: action taken: YES ; action completed: ; Completion date: 
A useful table, but the Court should define the denominator ‘total government expenditure’ — does it include or exclude 
pensions, does it follow the definitions used in the EMU legislation? These things are not currently clear. 

Poland: action taken: ; action completed: ; Completion date: 
Note does not contain allegations against Poland 

Portugal: action taken: ; action completed: ; Completion date: 
The observation is in line with facts and does not require comment. 

Romania: action taken: YES ; action completed: NO ; Completion date: 

MEF: Measures taken in order to increase the absorption of EU funds related to financial year 2007-2013: 

- Ensuring the funds necessary to the management authorities for the payments to beneficiaries, given the gap between 
expenditure statement/claim to the EC and the receipts; 

-Identification and promotion of retrospective projects, i.e. projects initially financed from national sources or other 
sources (including IFIs), which are to be settled from EU funds, by their approval under Environment Sectoral 
Operational Programme 2007-2013 and Transport Operational Programme 2007-2013 in order to fully attract the 
European funds available.  

-Reducing the deadline from 45 working days to 20 working days to notify the beneficiary of the payment for the 
expenditure authorised in the refund application or, in the case of direct payments, to notify the beneficiary of authorising 
the expenditure in the refund application. 

-Establishing a mechanism for direct settlement of the applications for payment to local beneficiaries failing to settle 
invoices for goods/services/works received, accepted for payment, in order to ensure the financial flow to enable timely 
implementation of projects. 

18

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
-Extension of the applicability of the settlement mechanism for the payment claim to all categories of beneficiaries of 
projects financed from European grants, including private beneficiaries, failing to settle invoices for 
goods/services/works received and accepted for payment; 

-Training measures and increasing the administrative capacity of beneficiaries in accessing European funds; 

- Setting the percentage of additional contracting at operational programme level and not only at priority axis level 

- Instructions/orders with impact on the implementation of projects financed from European funds. 

With regard to the cohesion policy for the period 2014-2020, all operational programmes are currently adopted by the 
European Commission and the managing authorities have started their implementation (preparation of applicant’s 
guides/launching calls for projects). 

Slovakia: action taken: YES ; action completed: NO ; Completion date: 
Action to draw on EU resources is taken in collaboration with a Commission working party established in 2014. The 
results of the action are periodically monitored at joint meetings between Slovakia and the Commission. 

Slovenia: action taken: YES ; action completed: ; Completion date: 

Spain: action taken: YES ; action completed: YES ; Completion date: 12 October 2015 
EFF and FIFG: Reprogramming of the financial plan, approved by Commission Decision of 12 October 2015. 

Sweden: action taken: ; action completed: ; Completion date: 
This comment does not require Sweden to take action. 

United Kingdom: action taken: YES ; action completed: ; Completion date: 
This graph shows the level of outstanding EU commitments as a percentage of domestic government spending. 

19

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Paragraph 

Observation in the 2014 
Annual Report 

3.27. 

3.38. 

Monitoring and reporting on 
Europe 2020 

How Europe 2020 objectives 
are reflected in MS 
partnership agreements and 
programmes 

CHAPTER 3 – Getting results from the EU budget 

Luxembourg: action taken: ; action completed: ; Completion date: 

Member State reply 

France: action taken: YES ; action completed: YES ; Completion date: 

Germany: action taken: NO ; action completed: ; Completion date: 
For information only; no reply required. 

Latvia: action taken: YES ; action completed: YES ; Completion date: 11 November 2014 
The operational programme Growth and Employment was developed and coordinated with the European 
Commission. The Commission approved the programme on 11 November 2014. 

Poland: action taken: YES ; action completed: NO ; Completion date: 

Poland took steps to ensure the coordination of all 5 EU Funds (ESI Funds) in the programming phase. In 
accordance with the integrated approach principle, the Partnership Agreement sets out an investment strategy 
based on three EU policies: cohesion policy, the common agricultural policy (CAP) and the common fisheries 
policy (CFP). All programmes funded under these policies must be compatible with the Partnership 
Agreement, as emphasised in national law (Article 14h of the Principles of Development Policy Act of 6 
December 2006, as amended). The Minister for Regional Development coordinates the preparation of 
programmes for the purpose of implementing the Partnership Agreement (Article 14g of the Act). 

Areas of strategic coordination identified by the Partnership Agreement include monitoring the cohesion of 
actions whereby the various policies covered by the Agreement are implemented. The Minister for Regional 
Development and the Minister for Rural Development and Fisheries cooperate within the Partnership 
Agreement Committee, which was set up by national law (Article 14l of the Act) as the President and Vice-
President of the Committee respectively.  

20

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
3.46. 

3.48. 

Defined operational 
objectives in partnership 
agreements 

Defined operational 
objectives in partnership 
agreements 

However, Poland sees the need for further harmonisation of the rules governing the implementation of 
cohesion policy, CAP and CFP funds, because the specific nature of measures under individual funds makes it 
much more difficult to take complementary and integrated actions. 

Portugal: action taken: ; action completed: ; Completion date: 

The observation is in line with facts and does not require comment. 

Germany: action taken: ; action completed: ; Completion date: 
The responsible authorities point out that the requested information is already held by the Commission, as is 
evident from the response to point 3.60. 

Latvia: action taken: YES ; action completed: YES ; Completion date: 11 November 2014 
We would point out that achieving the principle targets is dependent on a number of factors which are influenced both by 
Cohesion Policy financing and national policies. Bearing in mind the results-orientated approach and the description of 
the notion of intervention logic which the European Commission has incorporated in its monitoring and evaluation 
guidelines, the specific support targets in the operational programme are formulated so as to provide a more accurate 
representation of the substance of the intervention and the desired changes. For example, one of Latvia's national 
objectives as set out in the partnership agreement is investment in R&D at a rate of 1.5 % GDP. Attaining this objective 
involves a number of elements which are defined at operational programme level and also in the partnership agreement 
as specific issues requiring action, and a certain amount of financing is earmarked to address these issues (e.g. for 
attracting human resources to science, private sector involvement in R&D, etc.). Therefore, in certain cases a situation 
may arise where individual specific support objectives appear to have an induced impact on the overall national 
objective, but they are in fact a key component of the broader policy framework. 

Portugal: action taken: ; action completed: ; Completion date: 
The national authorities do not agree with the observation. 

Portugal 2020 programming reflects a step-by-step definition from the macro-objectives set out in the National 
Reform Programme for Portugal which defines the country's targets so as to meet the aims of the EU 2020 
strategy. 

21

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
As an example, it should be noted that the relation between result indicators for the Human Capital Operational 
Programme (HCOP) and the indicator ‘education and training dropout rate’ in the Europa 2020 strategy is as 
follows: The education and training dropout rate indicator, as can be seen in EE2020, is a Eurostat indicator. 
Information for calculating the indicator is collected by national statistical bodies through the European Labour 
Force Survey. The indicator refers to persons aged between 18 and 24 who, not having completed secondary 
education (ISCED 3), were not attending a school or training course in the four weeks prior to the survey. This 
indicator allows the effectiveness of the educational system to be measured with regard to the medium-term 
production of qualifications. However, it cannot be used as an indicator for immediate results for educational 
policy measures for the education and training of young people within the scope of Portugal 2020. This is 
because the target public for these measures and for the Eurostat indicator do not coincide time wise. The 
education and training measures for young people in Portugal 2020, more specifically the alternatives provided 
by the education system (vocational and professional training) are aimed at young people up to 18 years old 
(minimum age at which young people may leave the educational system). However, the target public for the 
Eurostat indicator are young people between 18 and 24 years of age. This means that the indicator calculated 
for 2014 reflects the results of the system between 2008 and 2014 (period which covers that age group in the 
educational system). Therefore, only in 2020 will the indicator fully reflect the investment effort in the 2014-
2020 programming period. 

France: action taken: NO ; action completed: YES ; Completion date: 
Le choix a été fait en France de ne pas identifier d’indicateurs de résultat dans l’accord de Partenariat mais de 
définir des tendances des résultats escomptés conformément à l’article 15 du règlement cadre. Ce choix a été 
effectué en accord avec les services de la Commission européenne. Dès lors les changements escomptés sont le 
fruit d’une négociation pour chaque programme entre la Commission et chaque autorité de gestion qui a établi 
ses résultats escomptés par action ainsi que les valeurs intermédiaires dans son programme qui a été négocié 
après l’adoption de l’accord de partenariat. 

Germany: action taken: ; action completed: ; Completion date: 
The responsible authorities point out that the requested information is already held by the Commission, as is 
evident from the response to point 3.60. 

22

3.59. 

Weak  focus on results in 
particular in the partnership 
agreements 

 
 
 
 
 
Latvia: action taken: YES ; action completed: YES ; Completion date: 11 November 2014 
The Guidelines on the Content of the Partnership Agreement 
(http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/sources/docgener/informat/2014/pa_guidelines.pdf) did not state that only 
quantified specific targets should be indicated.  
When the Partnership Agreement was being drafted, details had not yet been worked out of how financing 
would be distributed among specific support objectives, as laid down in the operational programme. It was 
therefore not possible in all cases to specify quantified targets in the Partnership agreement. We would point 
out that in the operational programmes, concrete target indicators with planned target values have been 
indicated for all specific support objectives, and in many cases Latvia has increased these values to take 
account of the proposals and objections set out in the ex ante evaluation and by the European Commission. For 
example, during the coordination process the volume of financing for thematic target 1 was significantly 
increased. 
With regard to targets for which quantified amounts are given in the Partnership Agreement, these have been 
determined in accordance with Europe 2020 strategy targets which were previously agreed with the competent 
EU institutions. It is unclear what criteria the Court of Auditors has used in finding that quantified targets are 
weak. 
Germany: action taken: ; action completed: ; Completion date: 

The responsible authorities point out that the requested information is already held by the Commission, as is 
evident from the response to point 3.60. 

France: action taken: YES ; action completed: YES ; Completion date: 
Ces indicateurs figurent dans la rubrique cadre de performance du programme opérationnel FSE ALSACE. Pour 
l’indicateur financier celui mentionné par la Cour correspond à l’axe 3 du PO et l’indicateur de réalisation à l’axe 1 du 
même PO. En effet, les résultats escomptés sont inscrits dans les programmes qui correspondent à un cadre territorial qui 
est différent selon les régions françaises. 

Germany: action taken: NO ; action completed: ; Completion date: 

For information only; Saxony-Anhalt is merely cited as an example and is not being criticised; no further reply 

23

3.60. 

Box 3.6 

Weak  focus on results in 
particular in the partnership 
agreements 

Examples of indicators, 
milestones and targets used in 
the performance framework 

 
 
 
 
 
required. 

Latvia: action taken: YES ; action completed: YES ; Completion date: 11 November 2014 

When compiling the operational programme performance framework, Latvia adhered strictly to the 
Commission's guidance on drafting the performance framework: 
http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/sources/docgener/evaluation/pdf/guidance_performance_framework.pdf. 
We would point out that the unit of measurement for financial indicators (or investment indicators as they are 
referred to in the commentary) is certified expenditure in euros, and it is therefore logical that these figures are 
essentially equal. It is also logical that the value of financial indicator targets for 2023 coincides 100 % with 
the amounts granted to a given fund under a specific priority axis, since Latvia, in common with other Member 
States, plans to make full use of the Cohesion Policy financing it is granted. 

24

 
 
 
CHAPTER 4 – Revenue 

Paragraph 

4.4. 

Observation in the 2014 
Annual Report 

Audit scope and approach for 
the TOR accounting systems 

Austria: action taken: NO ; action completed: ; Completion date: 

Member State reply 

4.8. 

Reservations addresed 

Spain: action taken: ; action completed: ; Completion date: 

No observations 

United Kingdom: action taken: n/a ; action completed: n/a ; Completion date: n/a 
n/a – this section describes the ECA audit scope and approach. 

Bulgaria: action taken: YES ; action completed: YES ; Completion date: 22 September 2015 
National Statistical Institute (NSI): On the basis of Eurostat methodology and verification missions and their 
findings with follow-up recommendations and reservations on the data to be developed and implemented by 
September 2015, the NSI developed and implemented the official reservations in the data. The reservations and 
recommendations from the findings which were implemented refer to: Additional adjustments for illegal 
activities: drugs and prostitution; FISIM; PIM method; Review of the stratification method for calculating 
imputed rent in the part concerning the calculation of intermediate consumption for repairs by owners; 
Property income to and from the Rest of the World; Coverage of originals, literature and entertainment works, 
music works and originals; VAT fraud; Implementation of the valuation methodology for own-produced 
software; Implementation of the valuation methodology for own-produced software for government, NPIs and 
financial undertakings; In-kind revenue in urban transport, Bulgarian National Railways (BDZ). 
Under Article 2(2) of Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1287/2003 of 15 July 2003 on the harmonisation 
of gross national income at market prices, by 22 September each year, Member States must provide the 
Commission (Eurostat), in the context of national accounting procedures, with figures for GNI and its 
components, and a report on the quality of GNI data. The questionnaire sent in September 2015 contains 
information concerning GNI figures for the period 2002–2014. In addition to the most recent data available, 

25

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
the questionnaire contains information about data submitted by Member States in the previous year. The GNI 
questionnaire is accompanied by the corresponding GNI quality report, as an integral part of it, where Member 
States are required to provide information about any changes in the sources and methods used to compile 
national accounts data, changes in estimate revision policies and an explanation. In the Questionnaire and GNI 
Quality Report sent in September 2015, the NSI submitted information about all reservations and 
recommendations issued.  
At the last GNI Committee meeting held 21-22 October 2015, a review of the reservations issued for inclusion 
in the GDP/GNI figures was carried out for each Member State. A timetable was also presented for carrying 
out additional verification missions in the countries identified as being most at risk of failing to meet their 
commitments – Latvia, Poland and Greece. Supplementary questions were sent to Bulgaria about the 
reservation for the PIM method. At present, the NSI is waiting for an official reply from Eurostat regarding the 
inclusion of all the reservations made in the figures. 
Ministry of Labour and Social Policy (MLSP): Not applicable to the Operational Programme ‘Human 
Resource Development’ 2007-2013. No errors were identified during the audit. 

Romania: action taken: YES ; action completed: NO ; Completion date: 
NSI- The NSI has sent the calculations to the Commission on GNI reservations for the years 2007 to 2013. 

United Kingdom: action taken: n/a ; action completed: n/a ; Completion date: n/a 

4.11. 

Revisions of methods and 
sources during 2014 had large 
impacts on GNI figures 

Cyprus: action taken: YES ; action completed: YES ; Completion date: 1 September 2015 
Cyprus paid the increase of its contributions due to the above in three instalments. The last instalment was paid 
in September 2015. 

Netherlands: action taken: YES ; action completed: ; Completion date: 
It is not clear to the Netherlands why we are mentioned here and Malta and the UK are not. 

4.13. 

Revisions of methods and 
sources during 2014 had large 

France: action taken: YES ; action completed: YES ; Completion date: Mai 2015 
Le 12 novembre 2014, compte tenu des corrections TVA et RNB au titre des exercices 1995-2013 particulièrement 
élevées dues par certains États membres, la Commission a présenté une proposition de modification du règlement 

26

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
impacts on GNI figures 

4.17. 

General reservations 

n°1150/2000 [COM(2014) 704] permettant aux États membres, sous certaines conditions, de différer la mise à 
disposition des montants des soldes TVA et RNB jusqu’au premier jour ouvrable du mois de septembre 2015. 
Afin que soit prise en compte la possible adoption de cette proposition, la Commission invitait les États membres 
souhaitant différer leur paiements à communiquer, avant le premier jour ouvrable de décembre 2014, à la Commission un 
échéancier contraignant en vue de la mise à disposition des montants en question. 
Par courrier en date du 27 novembre 2014, la France a notifié sa décision de différer la mise à disposition des montants 
des soldes TVA et RNB au titre des exercices 1995-2013 selon l’échéancier suivant qui a été mis en œuvre : 
- premier versement pour la moitié de la somme due le lundi 23 février 2015 ; 
- second versement pour la moitié de la somme due le mardi 26 mai 2015. 

Italy: action taken: ; action completed: ; Completion date: 

Malta: action taken: YES ; action completed: YES ; Completion date: 01/09/15 

Slovenia: action taken: YES ; action completed: YES ; Completion date: 02. 02. 2015 
Ministry of Finance, Budget Directorate: Slovenia paid the amount due under the adjustment of the Member States’ 
national contributions on the basis of VAT resources and additional resources, amounting to EUR 8,063,933.32, on the 
first working day of February 2015, i.e. 02.02.2015. 

United Kingdom: action taken: n/a ; action completed: n/a ; Completion date: n/a 

Greece: action taken: YES ; action completed: NO ; Completion date: In cooperation with Eurostat. 
ELSTAT sent data for the years 2008 and 2009 to Eurostat in August 2014.  
It should be noted that the data for 2008 and 2009 and the supporting documentation sent in August 2014 are based on 
research results and not on preliminary estimates, since the final research evidence was available and the required quality 
checks had been performed.  
In November 2014, a Eurostat mission visited ELSTAT and thoroughly checked the evidence for  
2008 and 2009 thoroughly, as well as the documentation forwarded. It is expected to provide a technical opinion on the 
lifting of a general reservation  
for the years 2008 and 2009. 
In addition, the data and documentation for the years 2002-2009 were sent in September 2015,  according to the 

27

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
4.19. 

Problems relating to post-
clearance audits 

requirements of the programme  
for the transmission of the GNI Questionnaire 2015. 
 The assessment of Eurostat is ongoing, following the visit of December 2015.  
ELSTAT is continuing its work, in accordance with Eurostat's instructions, in order to address the concerns on the 
GNI/GDP. 
Austria: action taken: YES ; action completed: NO ; Completion date: 
An appropriate reply to the Commission is being prepared. 

Spain: action taken: ; action completed: ; Completion date: 
The Spanish system is based on the presence of research units at central level. These identify undertakings that 
may be verified by the regional services, which bear ultimate responsibility for the selection and may in turn 
select other taxpayers.  
It is justifiable to give the regional services the final say on the matter because they are responsible for 
allocating the workload of the Office as a whole between its different units and services. They also have a 
more direct and immediate knowledge of the subjective and objective risk profile affecting operators in their 
area. This never implies that higher risk enterprises might be left unchecked. Because they are a central 
service, the Customs and Excise Department investigation units are the official interlocutor with EU bodies 
and have the power to carry out actions to obtain information by serving formal notices on any person or entity 
throughout Spain. Because they also monitor control activities in the various regional departments, they are the 
national authority in possession of most information and they initially select the highest-risk undertakings.  
Having established this principle, the problem that the ECA seems to be raising over the fact that the system 
may mean that high-risk undertakings are left unchecked due to lack of resources in the Office to which they 
are attached whereas other lower-risk undertakings are checked because the competent Office has sufficient 
resources to do this, would only arise if the selection of undertakings ultimately carried out by the central 
services were to be left unchecked due to lack of resources in the regional services responsible for carrying out 
the checks. However, the actual situation reveals that the vast majority of cases notified by the central to the 
regional services are ultimately subject to verification. This means that although the risk identified by the ECA 
of higher-risk undertakings being left unchecked cannot be ruled out completely, practical experience shows 
that this risk is not present, or at least does not have a significant impact on the efficiency of the control 
system.  

28

 
 
 
4.22. 

Problems relating to the 
management of the B 
accounts 

4.23. 

Open points management 

By way of illustration, in 2013, the year on which the ECA has focused its audit work, all the undertakings that 
were the subject of notifications from central services to regional services affecting the European Union’s 
financial interests were ultimately checked. 
Spain: action taken: ; action completed: ; Completion date: 

The debts in the B account that have not been challenged are considered for the purpose of calculating the 
percentage referred to. We understand that this criterion is not entirely accurate, but given the special 
circumstances arising in the management of the B accounts, seeking to use statistical data from earlier years 
would also give rise to a figure that does not correspond to the actual situation. We completely rule out 
examination on a case-by-case basis due to the high workload this would entail for the Spanish administration. 

United Kingdom: action taken: YES ; action completed: NO ; Completion date:  
The UK accept that the current procedure for preparing the B Account statements is complex and its manual 
nature has led to occasional mistakes. However, lessons have been learnt and the methodology and guidance 
improved and streamlined as a result.  
The CHIEF system is to be replaced and the strategy is to integrate post clearance functionality into the new 
service, providing an end-to-end audit trail within the one system. The new service is expected to be delivered 
in 2017. Once the full system is operational there will no longer be a requirement for the B Account to include 
so many complex and manual processes. 
Germany: action taken: YES ; action completed: NO ; Completion date: Scheduled for 2016 

Greece: action taken: ; action completed: ; Completion date: 

Portugal: action taken: YES ; action completed: NO ; Completion date: 

The national authorities are making every effort to correct all the errors detected in the audits. 

Table 4.1. 

VAT/GNI balances for 2014  Austria: action taken: NO ; action completed: ; Completion date: 

Belgium:  action taken: YES ; action completed: NO ; Completion date: 
Il semble que le pourcentage figurant dans le calcul est susceptible d'être augmenté. 

29

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Au vu des derniers chiffres du budget UE pour 2015 (derniers soldes reçus) on peut calculer ce qui suit: 

TVA 

PNB 

PNB + TVA 

Budget EU 2015 

511.842.600 2.677.114.263 3.188.956.863(b) 

soldes 

72.870.422

147.715.886  220.586.308(a) 

6,92%(c)=a/b 

Concernant la TVA, nous devons effectuer des paiements supplémentaires car notre compensation pour les 
voitures a été ajustée à la baisse (c'était une compensation négative pour l'UE). La réserve sur cette 
compensation a été annulée (quid pro quo). A propos du PIB, nous ne pouvons nous prononcer (le PIB a été 
ajusté à la hausse à plusieurs reprises). 
La Belgique n'a pas demandé de report l'année dernière. 
Pour le tableau 4.1, nous ne pouvons que confirmer les montants qui y figurent. 
En ce qui concerne les soldes TVA/RNB 1995 à 2013, le montant versé à la COM s'élève précisément à 
118.877.015,38 €. 
Le montant inscrit au budget pour le RNB était de 3.136.980.000,00 €. 
La Cour se penche principalement sur les chiffres indiqués par la Commission dans son propre budget par 
rapport aux soldes communiqués fin Novembre. 
Pour 2014, la COM semble avoir utilisé leur 7e budget rectificatif de cette année. 
Ces chiffres ne semblent pas tenir compte du rabais britannique. 
Pour ce qui est des douanes belges 

YEAR  REPORT 

NO 

COUNT
RY 

OPEN 
POINTS

Measures taken 

Points 
closed 
between 
2/10/14 
and 
20/3/15 

2009 
2010 

09.0.2 
10.0.2 

BE 
BE 

3.1   
3.4      

30

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
  
  
  
2011 

11.0.1 

BE 

3.4 

2011 
2013 

11.0.2 
13.0.1 

BE 
BE 

3.3(3) 
Part 1:     
3.1           
3.2          
Part 2:     
3.1           
3.2 

2013 

13.0.2 

BE 

3.1           
3.2           
3.3 

Globalisation sub-working 
group established as part of the 
National Forum and 
negotiations ongoing with 
business re. best solution.  
Discussions have also begun 
with IBM. 

Part 1: point 3.1.: Deloitte 
carried out its audit in 2015.  
The audit's findings will be 
transferred to the European 
Commission in early 2016.   
Part 1: point 3.2.: under 
examination 
Part 2: The six-monthly 
progress report on the PLDA 
action plan will be forwarded 
this month. 

3.1. and 3.2. are still awaiting 
budget approval. 
3.3. has been completed and is 
regarded as such by the 
Commission. 

31

 
 
 
  
  
  
  
  
2014 

14.0.1 

BE 

3.1               
3.2               
3.3               
3.4               
3.5               
3.6               
3.7 

Point 3.1.: New procedure 
developed by the Tariff 
Service within the licensing 
framework. 
Instruction/gentlemen's 
agreement also already 
adapted. 
Point 3.6. A: Departments 
were again made aware of 
the instruction.  
Point 3.6.B: Completed 
Point 3.6.C: Cases entered in 
OWNRES and fraud forms 
compiled. 

Bulgaria: action taken: ; action completed: ; Completion date: 

Croatia: action taken: YES ; action completed: YES ; Completion date: 

Cyprus: action taken: ; action completed: ; Completion date: 

Czech Republic: action taken: ; action completed: ; Completion date: 
Irrelevant – there is no error involved. 

Denmark: action taken: ; action completed: ; Completion date: 
This table appears to present factual circumstances and it is therefore not relevant to comment on whether 
action has been taken or not. 

Estonia: action taken: YES ; action completed: YES ; Completion date: 2015 

Finland: action taken: YES ; action completed: YES ; Completion date: 7 December 2015 
The amount of the adjustment (- EUR 34 million) is correct. The total budget (EUR 1 669 million) is also 

32

 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
correct as concerns GNP and VAT payments, excluding the adjustments made in December 2015 (- EUR 34 
million), and the 'opt-out' (+ EUR 1 million). 

France:  action taken: YES ; action completed: YES ; Completion date: budget final 2014 
Le solde TVA et RNB de 562 M€ au 31 décembre 2014 indiqué consiste en un solde pour les années 1995-2013 de 70,4 
M€ pour la ressource TVA et de 491,9 M€ pour la ressource RNB, en faveur de la Commission européenne. Il 
correspond à ce qui était indiqué dans la note d’information aux États membres du Budget Rectificatif n°6 pour les 
soldes de l’exercice 2014. 

Germany: action taken: ; action completed: ; Completion date: 
For information only; no reply required. 

Greece: action taken: ; action completed: ; Completion date: 

Hungary: action taken: YES ; action completed: YES ; Completion date: 01.12.2014 
We made available the full amount of correction to the VAT and GNI balance, we also made the VAT and 
GNI-based payment. 

Ireland: action taken: YES ; action completed: YES ; Completion date: 01/12/2014 

Ireland has paid its VAT & GNI balance. 

Italy: action taken: YES ; action completed: YES ; Completion date: 22/09/2014 

ISTAT completed the action linked to the GNI reservations (ESA 95) in September 2014, when the new ESA 
2010 regulation was adopted.  However, as of 31 December 2014 the nine reservations for Italy had not been 
lifted. 

Latvia: action taken: NO ; action completed: NO ; Completion date:  

In 2014 only one ECA audit was carried out in Latvia relating to the EU fund 2007–2013 planning period 
operational programme 3 Infrastructure and Services. The audit drew just one conclusion, namely that the 
Major Project application (pursuant to Article 39 of Regulation (EC) No 1083/2006) was not approved within 
a three-month period. This observation was not addressed to the Latvian authorities, but to the European 
Commission. 

33

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Lithuania: action taken: ; action completed: ; Completion date: 

Luxembourg: action taken: ; action completed: ; Completion date: 

Malta: action taken: YES ; action completed: YES ; Completion date: 01/09/15 
See point 4.13 

Netherlands: action taken:YES ; action completed: ; Completion date: 

Poland: action taken: ; action completed: ; Completion date: 
note does not contain allegations against Poland 

Portugal: action taken: ; action completed: ; Completion date: 
The observation is in line with facts and does not require comment. 

Romania: action taken: ; action completed: ; Completion date: 

UCRBUE-MFP- These amounts correspond to those adopted in amending budget No 7/2014. UCRBUE 

Slovakia: action taken: YES ; action completed: YES ; Completion date: 01/12/2014 
Included in the Call for Funds, December 2014. 

Slovenia: action taken: YES ; action completed: YES ; Completion date: 02. 02. 2015 
Ministry of Finance, Budget Directorate: Slovenia paid the amount due under the adjustment of the Member States’ 
national contributions on the basis of VAT resources and additional resources, amounting to EUR 8,063,933.32, on the 
first working day of February 2015, i.e. 02.02.2015. 

Spain: action taken: ; action completed: ; Completion date:  
No observations 

Sweden: action taken: ; action completed: ; Completion date: 
This comment does not require Sweden to take action. 

34

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
United Kingdom: action taken: n/a ; action completed: n/a ; Completion date: n/a 
n/a 

Table 4.2.  Member states GNI/GNP 
reservations 

Austria: Re TOR- action taken: YES ; action completed: NO ; Completion date: 

Re GNI- action taken: YES ; action completed: NO ; Completion date: 

Re VAT- action taken: NO ; action completed: NO ; Completion date: 

At the end of 2015, there were four reservations regarding VAT resources for Austria. Two from Austria 
(infringement proceedings 2007/2453 and 2010/2055) and two from the Commission (infringement 
proceedings 2007/2453 and 2012/2124). These are outlined briefly in the table on the next page, which also 
gives the years concerned. 

Source of the table: European Commission's VAT control report, ref. Ares(2015) 5247667 - 20/11/2015, letter 
from the European Commission of 20 November 2015. 

Belgium:  action taken: YES ; action completed: NO ; Completion date: 
1. Une réserve a été placée pour calculer le taux moyen pondéré de la TVA concernant le traitement des 
données relatives à la vente de terrains avec nouvelles constructions. Cette réserve a été levée au cours de 
l'année 2015. 

35

 
 
 
 
 
 
2. En lien avec ces terrains vendus avec une nouvelle construction, il reste une réserve relative aux années 
2011 et 2012. L'incertitude sur les chiffres provenant de différentes administrations devrait être clarifiée. 
3. La réserve sur le calcul de la compensation sur le plafond de la déduction fixé par l'article 45 § 2 du Code de 
la taxe sur la valeur ajoutée a été abolie en 2015. 
4. La réserve pour l'exonération des services postaux universels est relative à la compensation qui doit être 
calculée pour la période 2010-2011. Les services de la Commission européenne considèrent qu'il s'agit d'une 
question d'ordre méthodologique. La réserve est maintenue tant que la méthode ne sera pas clarifiée. 
5. Concernant la réserve en matière de services de restauration à bord des navires, trains et avions au cours 
d'un transport intracommunautaire de passagers: tant qu'il n'y a pas de sécurité juridique, la réserve sera 
maintenue. 

Bulgaria: action taken: YES ; action completed: YES ; Completion date: 22 September 2015 
Customs Agency (AM): Of the Commission’s 13 questions relating to TOR (as of 31 December 2014), eight 
have been closed following the opinions submitted by the Bulgarian customs authorities, as follows: 
-With regard to letter No BUDG/B/03/MF/D(2015)303939 of the Commission, dated 26 January 2015, 
concerning item 3.2 of Commission Report No 09-26-1 on the verification of TOR; 
-With regard to letter No BUDG/B/03/BF/D(2015)3555346 of the Commission, dated 28 August 2015, 
concerning items 3.4 and 3.7 of Commission Report No 12-26-1 on the verification of TOR; 
-With regard to letter No BUDG/B/03/MF/D(2015)348977 of the Commission, dated 29 January 2015, 
concerning items 3.1, 3.3 and 3.4 of Commission Report No 13-26-1 on the verification of TOR; 
-With regard to letter No BUDG/B/03/BF/D(2015)3874263 of the Commission, dated, 18 September 2015, 
concerning item 3.2 of Commission Report No 13-26-1 on the verification of TOR; 
-With regard to letter No BUDG/B/3/MF/FGO(2015)4167795 of the Commission, dated 8 October 2015, 
concerning item 3.2 of Commission Report No 14-26-1 on the verification of TOR. 
With regard to the open questions: 
The Bulgarian authorities have submitted opinions on items 3.1, 3.5 and 3.6 in Report No 12-26-1 in a letter to 
the Ministry of Finance (MF) No 32-221040, dated 27 October 2015;  
The Bulgarian authorities have taken action to issue an opinion on paragraphs 3.1 and 3.3 from Report No 14-
26-1 on the verification of TOR by the deadline of 27 November 2015.  
National Revenue Agency (NAP): The Bulgarian agencies represented by NAP, NSI and MF have taken action 
to reduce the number of VAT-related reservations. As a result of this, during the inspection conducted in early 
2015 by representatives of the Commission, two VAT-related reservations remained or five reservations were 
withdrawn. The Bulgarian authorities are endeavouring to remove all reservations related to the VAT base. 
NSI: See comment on Note 1 

36

 
 
 
 
Croatia: action taken: YES ; action completed: YES ; Completion date: 02/04/2015 

Cyprus: action taken: NO ; action completed: ; Completion date: 
No reservation was pending at 31 December 2014. Therefore, no action was taken to lift reservations.  
In the period between 24-27 June 2014, a team of auditors from the DG Budget and Eurostat (ESTAT) of the 
European Commission carried out an audit of the VAT own resources bases for the years 2011-2012. Upon 
completion of the audit, no reservation was raised.  
Please note that the four pending reservations were lifted after the completion of an audit of the VAT own 
resources bases for the years 2008-2010 that was carried out in 2012 by a team of auditors from the European 
Commission. 
action taken: YES ; action completed: NO ; Completion date: 
Regarding the 6 ‘open points’ of Cyprus’ traditional own resources, it should be noted that four of them have 
been completed, and the remaining two are in progress. 
action taken: YES ; action completed: YES ; Completion date: 22/09/2015 
As regards the GNI/GDP own resource, Cyprus has taken all the expected measures, which were forwarded to 
the European Commission to lift all reservations, and official approval is expected. 

Czech Republic: Open TOR-related points- action taken: YES ; action completed: NO ; Completion date: 
Report 13-25-1 was concluded as a whole by the Commission’s letter of 27 January 2015 (reference number 
312414 BUDG/B/3/TE (2015)); 
The response of the General Directorate of Customs to Report 14-25-1 (findings 3.1; 3.2) was sent on 15 April 
2015. The Commission has yet to respond. 
GNI reservations- action taken: YES ; action completed: YES ; Completion date: 30 September 2014 and 30 
September 2015 (estimated) 
All reservations were addressed as part of the extraordinary revision of 2014 national accounts (associated with 
the transition to ESA 2010). The results of the way this was handled, together with annotations, were sent to 
Eurostat in September 2014 (see the GNI Questionnaire 2014 and Quality Report 2014).  
Eurostat probed the handling of a specific reservation (housing) during a review mission in May 2015. Its 
observations were incorporated into the solution. The results of the solution were delivered to Eurostat in 
September 2015 (see the GNI Questionnaire 2015 and Quality Report 2015). 
The Czech Statistical Office has yet to receive any official information as to whether Eurostat accepts the 
solutions proposed. 

37

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Denmark: VAT reservations - action taken: YES ; action completed: NO ; Completion date: 
GNI reservations- All GNI reservations have been lifted or are currently being processed by the Commission. 
VAT reservations- As of 31 December 2014 four reservations had been entered regarding Danish VAT 
compensation. 
1. Three of these reservations concern passenger transport. The three reservations concern a) long-distance 
coach transport by foreign companies in Denmark, b) the inclusion or non-inclusion of state subsidies in the 
calculation of the VAT base, c) the separation of input and output (in connection with b)). 
a) Agreement has subsequently been reached between the Commission and the Danish authorities on a 
compensation calculation that includes long-distance coach transport by foreign companies in Denmark in the 
calculated VAT base.  
b) and c) A solution remains to be found. 

2. The fourth reservation concerns a compensation calculation for the restriction on businesses’ entitlement to 
make deductions for car use. The Danish authorities are in dialogue with the Commission on a new 
compensation calculation that involves using the central motor register (DMR), which entered into force in 
mid-2012.  
Traditional own resources- As of 31 December 2014 there were 21 outstanding points registered in 7 audit 
reports concerning traditional own resources. 
Audit report 2009-1-1 on inspection of own resources concerning transit procedures and TIR 
There were two outstanding points as of 31 December 2014 that were awaiting, respectively, a judgment in 
two cases at the CJEU, and the full operation of the complete risk module in NCTS, implemented from 1 
January 2015. The latter point has since been closed. 
Audit report 2010-1-1 on inspection of own resources concerning control strategy 
As of 31 December 2014 there was still one point open. However, that point was later closed and the audit 
report was finalised.  
Audit report 2011-1-1 on inspection of own resources concerning the local clearance procedure (import) 
Two points in this audit report remained open as of 31 December 2014. The two points concern insufficient 
information in the notifications for the local clearance procedure and weaknesses in risk management in 
connection with the local clearance procedure.  
Audit report 2011-1-2 on inspection of own resources concerning repayments or remission and non-recovery 
of duties 
Two points in this audit report remained open as of 31 December 2014. The two outstanding points concern:  
•identifying the population of remissions and repayments and the impact on accounting reporting 
•failure to respect the statutory procedure for remissions and payments 

38

 
 
 
 
Audit report 2012-1-1 on inspection of own resources concerning anti-dumping measures 
The four points in this audit report were still open as of 31 December 2015 [sic]. The Commission has 
requested the introduction of new IT procedures for the registration of data covered by the registration 
regulations. In addition, the Commission has requested clarification of legal interpretation regarding entry into 
the accounts, information on the use of risk data in the risk analysis and confirmation of the introduction of 
internal control standards. Of these four points, two were closed in 2015. 
Audit report 2013-1-1 on inspection of own resources – investigation of the reliability of the 2012 A and B 
accounts. This report contains five points concerning: 
•no assessment of responsibility for amounts written-off 
•errors in updating the B account 
•TOR amounts made available belatedly 
•administrative error leading to remission 
•various issues with cases of repayment 
The five points remain outstanding. 
Audit report 2014-1-1 on inspection of own resources – end-use procedure 
The report was issued on 30 January 2015. 
This audit report contains five points that are still outstanding and that concern: 
•failures in end-use authorisations 
•lack of control of customs clearance and lack of customs supervision 
•goods potentially cleared for end use without authorisation due to IT system flaws 
•cases of financial liability linked to end use 
•issues with end use for particular goods 
Denmark is in ongoing dialogue with the Commission on the implementation of solutions for the points that 
remain outstanding in all the audit reports. 

Estonia: action taken: YES ; action completed: YES ; Completion date: 2015 

Finland: action taken: YES ; action completed: NO ; Completion date: 
GNI/GNP reservations: At the end of 2014, five reservations were outstanding (the table erroneously reports 
that there were six). Statistics Finland took steps to lift them in 2014. One reservation was lifted in 2015 and 
Eurostat is preparing proposals to lift the remaining four. 
The VAT reservations have been inspected; no comments to report. 
Concerning the six outstanding points in the area of traditional own resources, the Commission and the 
Member State will continue to work together to lift these outstanding points. In regard to the open points, the 

39

 
 
 
 
 
Member State has already implemented corrective measures to resolve the points referred to in the observation. 

France:  action taken: YES ; action completed: NO ; Completion date: au gré des échanges entre la France et 
la Commission suivant la procédure normale. 
Sept réserves (deux spécifiques à la France, cinq transversales) portaient sur le RNB français au 31/12/2014. 
Des actions ont été entreprises au cours de l’année écoulée. 
S’agissant des réserves TVA, les réserves sur les relevés TVA au 31 décembre 2014 portent sur deux sujets: 
les manifestations sportives (cette réserve n’aura plus lieu d’être à partir du 1er janvier 2015, car le droit 
français a été mis en conformité) et les transports de biens entre la France métropolitaine et la Corse (une 
réserve par la France et une par la Commission). Une réserve a par ailleurs été déposée en juin 2015 à la suite 
de l’ouverture par la Commission européenne d’une procédure d’infraction (EU Pilot 6581/14) pour 
l’exonération de TVA des services d'aide à la personne fournis par les associations sans but lucratif. 
S’agissant des points ouverts sur les RPT, un grand nombre de points ouverts concerne des dossiers individuels 
relatifs à des montants inscrits en ou retirés de la comptabilité séparée – B. Ils sont clos au gré des mises à 
disposition des montants principaux éventuellement dus et des intérêts de retard exigibles, le cas échéant, à la 
demande exclusive des services de la Commission (DG Budget). 
Pour les autres points ouverts, de portée plus générale, ils suivent le processus normal d’échange de position 
entre les autorités françaises et les services de la Commission. La plupart de ces points ouverts devraient être 
clos rapidement (premier semestre 2016) car faisant l’objet d’observations récurrentes de la part des agents 
mandatés en cours de clôture. À titre d’exemple, près de la moitié des points ouverts du rapport d’inspection n° 
14-5-2 sont à mettre en relation avec des points ouverts de rapports antérieurs. Or, les points n° 3.1, n° 3.3 et n° 
3.4 de ce rapport devraient être clos une fois le CCRP-RPT du 9 décembre 2015 passé. En relation avec des 
points ouverts inscrits aux rapports n° 09-5-2, n° 10-5-1, n° 10-5-2, n° 12-5-1, n° 13-5-1 et n° 14-5-1, ces 
derniers devraient être clos en cascade, ce qui aura également pour conséquence de clore intégralement 
certains de ces rapports plus anciens. 

Germany: action taken: YES ; action completed: NO ; Completion date: 

Greece: action taken: YES ; action completed: NO ; Completion date: In cooperation with Eurostat 
Throughout 2015, ELSTAT has implemented a comprehensive work and action plan in order to address the 
concerns on the GNI/GDP.  
Throughout this programme, ELSTAT has worked intensively to solve the issues related to the reservations 
and submitted the information and documents requested by Eurostat in 2015. In addition, ELSTAT cooperates 
with Eurostat in addressing these reservations and Eurostat visited ELSTAT on two occasions in 2015 (in June 

40

 
 
 
 
 
 
and December) to carry out a detailed evaluation of ELSTAT's work with the aim of removing the 
reservations.  
In particular, during the December visit (15-17 December 2015) a direct verification of the data submitted was 
carried out by Eurostat. Eurostat is in the process of examining the information and documentation submitted. 

Hungary: action taken: YES ; action completed: NO ; Completion date: in progress 
Five of the GNI reservations were lifted on the basis of the letter dated 17 June 2015, the drafting and sending 
of the official notification on lifting the other seven is underway. In respect of the only VAT-based reservation, 
we are holding consultations with the Commission to settle the issue. 

Ireland: action taken: YES ; action completed: NO ; Completion date: 

Regarding GNI reservations, the 4 reservations are transversal i.e. applicable to all member states. The state of 
play is as follows: 

Country 

Ireland 

Transversal GNI Reservation (from Eurostat 
GNI Committee meeting October 2015) 
I. The treatment of cross-border property income 

Years of 
application 
2002-2010 

Reservation lifted 

State of play  

II. The calculation and allocation of financial 
intermediation services indirectly 
measured (FISIM) 

2010 onwards 

III. The treatment of entities with little or no 
physical presence 

2002-2010 

18/09/2013 

2002-2010 

06/02/2014 

IV. The treatment of car scrap schemes 

2002-2010 

06/02/2014 

V. The treatment of cooperative dwellings 

2002-2010 

VI. The inclusion of illegal activities in national 
accounts 

2009-2010 

06/02/2014 

2009-2010 

VII. The recording of the vehicle registration tax 

VIII. The calculation of IC for actual and imputed 
rentals in the estimation of the production 
of housing services 

41

I - Technical 
opinion on lifting 
is being prepared. 

II - Not yet 
addressed. 

VI and VIII - 
Technical 
opinions on lifting 
of reservations are 
being prepared by 
Eurostat. 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
As at 18 November 2015, CSO awaits formal receipt of Eurostat’s technical opinions on the three reservations 
listed above.  On reservation II (FISIM), Eurostat has given a deadline of September 2016 for the 
implementation of the required methodology in the national accounts.  CSO is preparing a revised FISIM 
calculation methodology for transmission to Eurostat, before the end of 2015, for its consideration. Once this is 
approved by Eurostat, CSO will implement the changes in its next annual national accounts results time series, 
scheduled for June 2016.   

Regarding the VAT reservations, we continue to work closely with the European Commission, the Central 
Statistics Office and colleagues in other sections of the Revenue Commissioners of Ireland. We have 
responded to the Commission regarding the outstanding reservations and we expect several of the reservations 
to be lifted in the new year. 

Regarding the TOR reservations Revenue has noted with interest the Court of Auditors observations in relation 
to Traditional Own Resources. Table 4.2 reveals that as at 31/12/14, there were 13 ‘open points’ related to 
inspections carried out by DG BUDGET in Ireland. A number of these ‘open points’ have been dealt with 
since that date. The updated position is as follows; 

•There are currently 8 ‘open points’ remaining associated with inspections in 2011 and 2013 

•2011 inspection – A follow up report was received from DG BUDGET in Sept 2015. Three ‘open points’ 
remain. Our response to this follow up will be dispatched to DGBUDGET before the end of 2014. Two of the 
remaining open points relate to the charging of late payment interest. They will be closed once this interest has 
been paid. We are currently awaiting information from DGBUDGET on the exact amount involved. These 
amounts will be paid after the amounts requested are verified. It is also hoped that the third ‘open point’ will 
also be closed once Ireland have provided clarification to DG BUDGET on the matter. 

•2013 inspection – There were five ‘open points’ associated with this inspection. Ireland provided a response 
to DG BUDGET on these in early 2015.  To date (mid Nov 2015) we have not yet received any further follow 
up from DG BUDGET on the matter. Accordingly, they must remain open until such follow up is received. 

Italy: action taken: ; action completed: ; Completion date: 

With regard to VAT own resources, the action taken by the Italian authorities took the form of a series of documents and 
calculation sheets containing the proposals for lifting the remaining reservations.  

A new inspection visit concerning 2011-13 was carried out from 6 to 10 October 2014, following which the issues 
underlying the lifting of the remaining reservations were addressed. There were eleven reservations in place at the time 
of the inspection visit, eight on the part of the Commission and three on the part of the Italian authorities. Italy's initial 

42

 
 
 
 
replies and the supporting documentation were provided within one month of the end of the Commission's inspection, 
with the result that the number of open reservations was reduced from eight to seven on the Commission's part, and to 
one on Italy's part (preliminary Commission report, Ares (2015) 707589 of 19 February 2015). 

For 2015, we note that in the final Commission report on the results of the inspection for 2014 (Ares (2015) 4455177 of 
21 October 2015), the Commission lifted three further reservations, leaving a total of six reservations outstanding, 
comprising four from the Commission and two from the Italian authorities. The results of the inspection for 2011-13 
were presented to ACOR in Brussels on 12 November 2015.  

With regard to the outstanding 1999 reservation concerning VAT receipts and refunds, the special audit requested by the 
Commission took place on 24 and 25 September 2015 with the participation of the national Court of Auditors, to check 
the accounting items subject to the reservation; work on this will be completed by the next ACOR meeting in 2016. 

TOR open points-  

action taken: YES ; action completed: YES ; Completion date: 20/03/2015 

Concerning Commission report No 12/7/1, regarding matters within the remit of the Ministry of Economic Affairs and 
Finance, General National Accounts Department, we would like to point out the following:  

1) 
with regard to point 3.1, 'Date of recovery within the meaning of the own-resources legislation', the electronic 
communication of data between Equitalia and the Ministry relating to enforced recoveries from the B account has been 
updated; 

with regard to point 3.4, 'Inconsistencies between the statements of the A and B accounts', on the basis of the 

2) 
monthly payment for March 2015 (January 2015 assessments), the statement for the A account has been amended and an 
annex to this account has been produced, as requested by DG BUDG B3. 

Response from the Customs and Monopolies Agency on the other open TOR points 

action taken: YES ; action completed: NO ; Completion date:  

Latvia: action taken: YES ; action completed: YES ; Completion date: 21 November 2014 

With regard to unresolved issues concerning traditional own resources, we confirm that all the issues identified 
during checks in Latvia on traditional own resources have been resolved. 

action taken: YES ; action completed: NO ; Completion date:  

With regard to the GNI/GNP reservations, during 2015 concerted efforts continued (including three Eurostat 
information visits) aimed at eliminating all remaining GNI reservations as soon as possible. The 2015 GNI 
questionnaire included the results of work on specific GNI reservations and cross-cutting issues (impact on the 

43

 
 
 
 
volume of GNI), and the quality report also provided a brief description of the work done on GNI reservations. 
Detailed information has been sent to Eurostat, but a methodological description relating to one reservation is 
still to be completed (the volume of GNI is not subject to an audit). With regard to the 15 remaining 
reservations, the Central Statistical Board has conducted all necessary audits of GNI figures and has submitted 
all the necessary documentation with a view to these reservations being lifted. Further progress is dependent on 
how quickly Eurostat can prepare all the necessary documentation in order to officially lift these reservations. 

action taken: YES ; action completed: NO ; Completion date:  

With regard to the VAT reservations, the question was raised within the framework of the EU Pilot procedure 
6103/14/TAXU as to whether the value added tax exemption for accommodation management services complies with the 
provisions of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (the VAT 
Directive). The Commission's services sent their first request for information to the competent Latvian authorities on 11 
February 2014, to which the Latvian authorities replied on 22 April 2014. Following receipt of this response, on 8 July 
2014 the Commission's services sent a further request for information, to which the Latvian authorities replied on 6 
August 2014. On 26 November 2014 the Latvian authorities received the Commission's letter of formal notice in 
infringement proceedings 2014/2233. 
The letter setting out Latvia's position in response to the Commission's letter of formal notice in these infringement 
proceedings stated that, with a view to resolving the infringement identified by the Commission and correctly applying 
the provisions of the VAT Directive, Latvia will amend the Value Added Tax Law by deleting Article 52(1)(25)(b), 
which provides for VAT exemption for accommodation management services.  
We would inform you that on 30 November 2015 the Saeima adopted the Law amending the Value Added Tax Law, 
which stipulates that from 1 July 2016 Article 52(1)(25)(b) is deleted from the Value Added Tax Law. At the same time 
Article 52(1)(8)(b) of the Law on VAT, laying down VAT exemption for accommodation maintenance and management 
services provided by cooperative societies for owners of dwellings to their members, is also deleted. Therefore, as of 1 
July 2016 accommodation management services will be subject to VAT. 

Lithuania: action taken: YES ; action completed: NO ; Completion date: 
There is a technical conclusion by Eurostat on all the four GNP reservations that they need to be repealed 
(document on the state of GNP reservations drawn up at the 31st meeting of the GNP Committee (21-22 
October 2015) (Doc. 309)) (actions ongoing). 
On 1-5 December 2014 the European Commission carried out a control inspection to check own-resources 
reports based on value added tax (‘VAT’) for 2011-2013. On 16 November 2015 the final consolidated 

44

 
 
 
 
document by the European Commission’s Directorate General for Budget submitted after Lithuania put 
forward its comments on the control of VAT-based own-resources confirmed that Lithuania still did not have 
any VAT reservations (actions completed). 
Action was taken in respect of open comments concerning traditional own resources (‘TOR’) listed in the 
Court’s report and they are being handled (actions ongoing): 
-Paragraphs 3.1 and 3.2 of the European Commission’s Report No 11-20-1 of 9 January 2012 on TOR checks 
carried out in Lithuania on 3 7 October 2011 (Letter No BUDG/B/03/KV (2014) of 2 October 2014 from the 
European Commission). 
-Paragraphs 3.2 and 3.3 of the European Commission’s Report No 12-20-1 of 25 January 2013 on the TOR 
check carried out in Lithuania on 22-26 October 2012 (Letter No BUDG/B/3/KV D92014) of 5 November 
2014 from the European Commission). 
-Paragraph 3.1 of the European Commission’s Report No 14-20-1 of 5 September 2014 on the TOR check 
carried out in Lithuania on 16 20 June 2014. 

Luxembourg: action taken: YES (pour 1 réserve TVA) ; action completed: NO (réserve TVA, commission 
informée); Completion date: 2016 (réserve TVA) 
action taken: YES (RPT) ; action completed: NO (RPT) ; Completion date: en attente d’une réponse de la 
Commission (RPT) 
Concernant les RPT :Une prise de position au dernier point restant du rapport 13-8-1 de 2013 a été envoyée le 
10.12.2014 à la Commission. 

Malta: action taken: YES ; action completed: YES ; Completion date: 01/09/15 
The Statistics Office worked on 11 GNI/GNP reservations during 2015. The last reservation will be discussed 
with Eurostat during 2016. 

Netherlands: action taken: YES ; action completed: ; Completion date: 

Poland: action taken: YES ; action completed: NO ; Completion date: for GNI: 31.12.2015 for TOR: 
14.07.2015 
GNI- With regard to GNI, the Commission reserved its position on eleven issues specific to Poland and eight 
cross-sector issues. Reservation (4) was lifted on 23 April 2014 and Reservation (9) was lifted on 6 August 

45

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
2014. 
The Central Statistical Office has made the necessary amendments to the 2015 GNI Questionnaire to launch 
the procedure for lifting reservations on GNI. Eurostat is currently pursuing checks on GNI. It is planning to 
prepare technical opinions on the reservations by 31 December 2015. 
VAT- The Commission accepted the revised VAT calculations and updated its database by the amounts of 
compensation. Accordingly, the final reservation in respect of the Central Statistical Office for 2004-10 was 
lifted. 
In addition, in view of the fact that the reservations referred to in Table 4.2 of Chapter 4 may be raised by 
Member States or the Commission in connection with the method or data used to calculate the EU VAT own 
resources base, and that work to address the relevant issues and lift the reservations is an ongoing process 
involving close cooperation between the Member States and the Commission, in our opinion, Table 4.2 should 
indicate that of the VAT reservations as at 31.12.2014 concerning Poland, one had been flagged up by the 
Polish authorities and concerned the excessively wide-ranging VAT exemption for postal services. 
TOR- After the checks carried out on 12-16 November 2012 concerning the Statement of Assurance for the 
2012 financial year (DAS 2012) for Traditional Own Resources, the Court of Auditors produced eight 
preliminary findings (in 17 points) which were set out in its letter to the Supreme Audit Office dated 6 
February 2013 (ref. PF-5410). Those preliminary findings, the Polish authorities’ reply and the letter from the 
Court of Auditors were forwarded to the Commission, which, by letter dated 4 September 2015 ref. 3651543, 
indicated that with regard to the reply of the Polish authorities (the definitive reply to the Commission on this 
subject had been set out in letter DC2.9021.13.2015.PXM of 14 July 2015) it regarded preliminary findings 
sheet PF 5410/12 as closed. 

Portugal: action taken: ; action completed: ; Completion date: 
With respect to the information in table 4.2. – TOR outstanding points at 31 December 2014, it could be 
inferred with regard to the conclusions and recommendations made by the ECA, and accepted in the broader 
meaning for all Member States, that the systems are generally effective for TOR. Some processes are being 
duly monitored and others are awaiting analysis, in accordance with the corrections made at the request of the 
Commission, the competent entity for the inspections. 
From a more detailed analysis of the outstanding points as set out in Commission reports in accordance with 

46

 
 
 
 
Article 18 of Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1150/2000, the following should be noted: 
a.At 31.12.2014 there were 14 outstanding points and not 15, bearing in mind that the outstanding point in 
Commission Report No 10-10-1 (control visit to Portugal from 12 to 16 July 2010) where national authorities 
had been required to pay late payment interest in accordance with Article 11 of Regulation No 1150/2000, this 
was paid to the European Commission on 22.12.2014, and as such, this point was closed at 31.12.2014; 
b.With respect to the accounting treatment to be carried out in the case of outstanding debt being declared 
time-barred, the Tax Authority drew up new instructions – Official Circular No 15383 of 15 July 2015 – which 
stated that the sums should be declared irrecoverable when debt is declared time-barred; 
c.With respect to the questionnaire that the Commission requested from national authorities to determine 
whether the irrecoverable nature of these sums is attributable to the national authorities or not for all sums 
subject to rectification due to time-barring, we would like to note that this questionnaire is almost complete. 
After completion, the following actions will be undertaken (1) reintegration of the sums into accounts (B), (2) 
conditional payment of the own resources involved and (3) analysis of the national authorities' investigation 
into the recovery of the sums in question with a view to concluding whether the Portuguese state should be 
considered responsible for non-collection; 
d.There are also a number of other points where the Commission requested additional information; 
e.There are other points which are now at the conclusion stage, as the sums in question have already been paid 
to the Commission. 

Romania: action taken: YES ; action completed: NO ; Completion date: 

In 2015, two GNI reservations were lifted. NSI 

RO points out that in 2015, two GNI reservations were lifted.  

As regards the VAT resource, the two  reservations existing on 31 December 2014 (one placed by RO and 

 one by COM) concerned the same issue (the motor vehicle compensation). UCRBUE 

The number of points in the inspection reports drawn up by the European Commission during the period   

2011-2014 which require settlement is 13, as pointed out in the above-mentioned document. 

CUSTOMS 

Slovakia: VAT reservations as at 31 December 2014- action taken: YES ; action completed: YES ; 

47

 
 
 
 
Completion date: 19/11/2015 
Reservation withdrawn (indicated in the European Commission’s document BUDG B4/GR/ 
Ares(2015)5205649 of 19 November 2015 – Summary Report pursuant to Article 6 of Regulation No 
1026/1999 on results and observations arising from the Commission’s inspection of statements of VAT-based 
resources in Slovakia for 2010, 2011 and 2012).   
TOR reservations as at 31 December 2014- action taken: YES ; action completed: NO ; Completion date:  
TOR open points as at 31 December 2014 concern TOR inspections by the Commission (DG BUDGET) 
carried out in 2013 and 2014. The Financial Directorate and DG BUDGET are engaged in correspondence on 
all points in a bid to close those that are open. As far as the open point from the 2013 inspection is concerned, 
we await DG BUDGET’s reaction, or, more specifically, notification of the closure of this point. As for the 
two open points stemming from the 2014 inspection, several part-open points have been closed, but 
communications between the Financial Directorate and DG BUDGET remain ongoing (this is detailed in 
document ACOR-TOR/2015-12/agenda-04-en – Brief summary of the Commission services’ positions on 
findings relating to 14 traditional own resources inspections). 
GNI/GNP reservations as at 31 December 2014- action taken: YES ; action completed: NO ; Completion date:  
A Commission letter of 3 June 2015 removed the Statistical Office’s Specific Reservation 1, which we take to 
mean that the reservation has been resolved. The following reservations have been provisionally approved on 
the basis of Eurostat information (email documentation): Specific Reservation 2 (18 September 2015), I (19 
August 2015 – notification of a proposal to remove the transversal reservation), II (on 28 October 2015, we 
were notified by letter that the transversal reservation had been closed), VIII (18 September 2015), V (18 June 
2015 – notification of a proposal to remove the reservation following the approval of Reservation VIII) and VI 
(25 June 2015). The open points await official approval and confirmation from the Commission. Building on 
the conclusions by the GNI working party (21-22 October 2015), Eurostat is planning to close most of the 
reservations by the end of 2015. 

Slovenia: action taken: YES ; action completed: YES ; Completion date: 21.09. 2015 
STATISTICAL OFFICE OF THE REPUBLIC OF SLOVENIA: In 2015, Eurostat was provided with additional 
explanations in connection with the reservations regarding the data on gross national income (GNI). Work on the 
revisions to the data relating to the reservations has been completed and the results sent to Eurostat on 21.9.2015 in the 
context of the regular submission of the GNI Questionnaire. 

Spain: action taken: YES ; action completed: NO ; Completion date:  
Two VAT reservations were outstanding at 31 December 2014 in the case of Spain. These were the same as 
for 31 December 2013, in the absence of any inspection by the Commission during 2014: 

48

 
 
 
 
 
1.- Processing of the special VAT scheme for travel agents. Reservation covering years 2003-2011. Following 
European Court of Justice judgment of 26 September 2013, Spain submitted comprehensive calculations for 
2003-2013 and in line with this judgment, together with the 2013 VAT base, in July 2014. The Commission 
has not expressed any opinion on the calculations submitted in 2014, nor has it entered them into its 2014 
financial database, except in the case of 2013. Neither did it re-evaluate this reservation in 2014. During the 
control visit of March 2015, the Commission came to an agreement with Spain over a methodological 
improvement in the calculations submitted by Spain to bring them more into line with the Court’s ruling and 
has withdrawn this reservation. Since January 2015 the special VAT scheme for travel agents  has been 
brought into line with the VAT Directive, in accordance with the Court of Justice judgment. 
2.- VAT exemption for services provided by public notaries with regard to certain financial transactions. 
Reservation covering years 2008-2011. Spain included a calculation of a compensation for the years covered 
by the reservation in a report on its findings sent to the Commission on 8 July 2013, in reply to the 
Commission’s control report of 2012; this compensation was also included in the calculation of the 2013 VAT 
base. The Commission entered these amounts into its financial database but upheld the reservation to allow 
verification of the supporting documents. During 2014, the Commission has not expressed an opinion on these 
calculations or reassessed this reservation. During the control visit of March 2015, the Commission came to an 
agreement with Spain over a methodological improvement in some of the calculation elements and has 
withdrawn this reservation. Spanish VAT Law abolished this exemption in January 2015. 

Sweden: action taken: ; action completed: ; Completion date: 
This comment does not require Sweden to take action. 

United Kingdom: action taken: YES ; action completed: NO ; Completion date: 
The UK had 12 GNI reservations at the end of 2014. The Commission notified us that they had lifted 11 of 
these during the course of 2015. The UK continues to cooperate and engage with the Commission to address 
the outstanding reservation. 
Regarding the UK VAT reservations, in each case the UK has been working closely with the Commission to 
resolve the issues identified. Actions taken include the provision of additional information to enable lifting of 
the reservation and the evaluation of underlying assumptions and data sources. Regarding the TOR Open 
Points, the UK accept that a number of points remain outstanding from previous inspections. The UK are 
committed to resolving them and remain in regular correspondence with the Commission via the usual 
channels. 

49

 
 
 
 
 
 
Paragraph 

Observation in the 2014 
Annual Report 

Box 5.3. 

Examples of errors in costs 

reimbursed for projects in 

CHAPTER 5 – ‘Competitiveness for growth and jobs’ 

Member State reply 

Greece: action taken: ; action completed: ; Completion date: 
This does not involve projects co-financed by Structural Funds and we do not have the data. 

other programmes under 

Italy: action taken: ; action completed: ; Completion date: 

‘Competitiveness for growth 

and jobs’ 

Sweden: action taken: ; action completed: ; Completion date: 
The observation concerns direct management by the Commission. Sweden has not received any further 
information about the substance of the audit and cannot comment on it. 

United Kingdom: action taken: YES ; action completed: YES ; Completion date: 
The UK is one of four countries the ECA has used as a case study to illustrate the issues with EU projects that 
involve cost reimbursements. The ECA has not identified the project referred to here 

50

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Paragraph 

6.5. 

Observation in the 2014 
Annual Report 

Regional and urban policy 
area 

CHAPTER 6 – Employment and social affiars 

Member State reply 

Greece: action taken: ; action completed: ; Completion date: 

Poland: action taken: ; action completed: ; Completion date: 

note does not contain allegations against Poland 

Romania: action taken: ; action completed: ; Completion date: 

MEF – N/A 

Slovakia: action taken: ; action completed: ; Completion date: 

In our opinion, the text conveys the state of play. 

Spain: action taken: No ; action completed: ; Completion date: 

No observations 

6.6. 

The CF finances investments 
in infrastructure in the fields 
of environment and transport 

Bulgaria: action taken: ; action completed: ; Completion date: 

Croatia: action taken: YES ; action completed: YES ; Completion date: 29/09/2015 

The operational programme "Competitiveness and Cohesion" within the Objective "Investment in Growth and 
Employment", is financed by the ERDF and CF. CF funds for the programme amount to EUR 2.5 billion. The 
selected CF investment priorities are: 6i - investing in the waste sector to meet the requirements of the Union's 
environmental acquis and to address the needs identified by the Member States for investment  that goes 
beyond those requirements; 6ii - investing in the water sector to meet the requirements of the Union's 
environmental acquis and to address the needs identified by the Member States for investment that goes 
beyond those requirements; 6iii - protecting and restoring biodiversity and soil and promoting ecosystem 
services, including through Natura 2000, and green infrastructure; 7i - supporting a multimodal  Single 

51

 
 
 
 
European Transport Area by investing in the TEN-T; 7ii - developing and improving environmentally-friendly  
(including low-noise) and lowcarbon transport systems, including inland waterways and maritime transport, 
ports, multimodal links and airport infrastructure, in order to promote  sustainable regional and local  mobility; 
7iii - developing and rehabilitating comprehensive, high quality and interoperable railway systems, and 
promoting noise reduction measures. The Act establishing an Institutional Framework for Implementation of 
European Structural Funds and Investment Funds in Croatia during the financial period 2014-2020  Narodne 
Novine (NN; Official Gazette of the Republic of Croatia) No 92/14  sets down the institutional framework for 
the management and implementation of European structural funds and investment funds in Croatia during the 
financial period 2014-2020 and names the institutions that carry on the remit of the Coordinating Body for 
managing ESI funds and the Independent Audit Body, as well as their functions and responsibilities. 
Furthermore, pursuant to the said law a decree was adopted on the bodies in the systems of management and 
control of the use of the European Social Fund, the European Regional Development Fund and the Cohesion 
Fund in connection with the goal of 'Investment for Growth and Jobs' (NN Nos 107/14, 23/15 and 129/2015). 
The said decree lays down the institutions that act as the bodies in the Systems of management and control of 
the use of the European social Fund, the European Regional Development Fund and the Cohesion Fund, 
providing details of their functions, tasks and responsibilities, or in other words, the said decree stipulates the 
authorities responsible for the foregoing investment priorities. Furthermore, on 29 September 2015 the 
Monitoring Committee approved the selection criteria for the selection of operations for certain specific 
objectives within these priority investments that are the basis for the preparation and publication of calls for 
grant applications. 

Cyprus: action taken: NO ; action completed: ; Completion date: 

Resources were provided from the Cohesion Fund in the framework of the Operational Programme 
Competitiveness and Sustainable Development 2014-2020. 

Czech Republic: action taken: ; action completed: ; Completion date: 

Irrelevant – there is no error involved. 

Estonia: action taken: YES ; action completed: YES ; Completion date: 

Hungary: action taken: NO ; action completed: ; Completion date: 

52

 
 
 
Factual finding, no action required. 

Latvia: action taken: YES ; action completed: YES ; Completion date: 11 November 2014 

Under the approved Latvian operational programme Growth and Employment, financing is provided to the 
areas referred to in both paragraphs 6.5 and 6.6. 

Lithuania: action taken: ; action completed: ; Completion date: 

Malta: action taken: ; action completed: ; Completion date: 

This is a state of affairs that does not warrant taking any action. 

Portugal: action taken: ; action completed: ; Completion date: 

The observation is in line with facts and does not require comment. 

Slovenia: action taken: YES ; action completed: ; Completion date: 

Slovenia is only mentioned as one of the Member States in which the Cohesion Fund finances investments in 
infrastructure in the areas of the environment and transport. 

Estonia: action taken: YES ; action completed: YES ; Completion date: 

Austria: action taken: No ; action completed: ; Completion date: 

Belgium: action taken: ; action completed: ; Completion date: 

Bulgaria: action taken: ; action completed: ; Completion date: 

Czech Republic: action taken: ; action completed: ; Completion date: 

Irrelevant – there is no error involved. 

Finland: action taken: YES ; action completed: NO ; Completion date: 21.12.2015 

Some of the recoveries have been carried out; the most recent due date was 21 December 2015. 

France: action taken: ; action completed: ; Completion date: 

53

6.7. 

6.21. 

Regional and urban policy 
area; Other spending 

Audit scope and approach 
involving an examination of 
transactions for regional and 
urban policy area and for 
employment and social 
affairs policy area 

 
 
 
 
Cf. réponses infra et dans l’annexe 2   

Germany: action taken: ; action completed: ; Completion date: 

For information only; no reply required. 

Greece: action taken: ; action completed: ; Completion date: 

Hungary: action taken: NO ; action completed: ; Completion date: 

Factual finding, no action required. 

Italy: action taken: ; action completed: ; Completion date: 

Latvia: action taken: ; action completed: ; Completion date: 

No comment, as this is a factual finding relating to the scope and approach of the audit. 

Lithuania: action taken: YES ; action completed: NO ; Completion date: 

Detailed information is given when listing specific audit findings in Annex II. 

Malta: action taken: ; action completed: ; Completion date: 

This section presents states of affairs but not results. There is therefore no scope for taking action. 

Netherlands: action taken: ; action completed: ; Completion date: 

Not applicable 

Poland: action taken: ; action completed: ; Completion date: 

note does not contain allegations against Poland 

Portugal: action taken: ; action completed: ; Completion date: 

The observation is in line with facts and does not require comment. 

Romania: action taken: ; action completed: ; Completion date: 

MEF – N/A 

54

 
 
 
6.35. 

Non-compliance with public 
procurement rules 

Slovakia: action taken: YES ; action completed: ; Completion date:  

In our opinion, the text conveys the state of play. 

Spain: action taken: ; action completed: ; Completion date: 

No observations 

Sweden: action taken: ; action completed: ; Completion date: 

This comment does not require Sweden to take action. 

United Kingdom: action taken: ; action completed: ; Completion date:  

N/a – no action required. 

Czech Republic: action taken: YES ; action completed: NO ; Completion date: 

Operational Programme Research and Development for Innovation- 

The action was taken prior to the ECA audit, not on the basis of its findings. 

This is an ongoing action that is being implemented continuously. 

It is expected to come to an end together with the winding-up of the Operational Programme Research and 
Development for Innovation. 

As far as the Operational Programme Research and Development for Innovation is concerned, the ECA audit 
found a single public procurement shortcoming, which was identified in the award of a single public contract 
and had no bearing on the selection of the contractor. Now that time has passed, this shortcoming cannot be 
corrected. In their provisional findings, the auditors themselves make the following observation on this 
shortcoming: ‘As the finding has no impact on the outcome of procurement, this observation has no direct 
financial impact and is classified among other compliance issues’.  

Generally speaking, we view public procurement errors as a critical risk to the Operational Programme 
Research and Development for Innovation, and we are paying appropriate attention to this matter. A public 
procurement review system has been introduced, encompassing checks on public contracts prior to notification, 
100 % checks on public contracts before they are paid, checks on public contracts during on-the-spot checks, 

55

 
 
 
and the periodic external and internal training of inspectors focusing on the decision-making practices of the 
courts and other inspection bodies. Checks are conducted by lawyers specialising in public procurement. 
Grantees regularly receive the information they need online, during training held on the Operational 
Programme Research and Development for Innovation, in individual consultations, and in the form of 
methodological assistance. As for the effectiveness of the review system we have introduced, we quote from 
the Audit Conclusion issued by the Supreme Audit Office as part of its Audit 14/22 – Financial resources 
intended for higher education teaching infrastructure:  

‘The Ministry of Education, Youth and Sports has also conducted thorough inspections of documentation on 
the procurement procedure held by aid beneficiaries. The rules established for the selection of suppliers 
included a detailed description of the procedure and requirements relating, among other things, to the 
preparation and performance of public contracts, including checks, documentation on contracts, procedures in 
specific cases, small-scale contracting, etc. In certain cases, the rules were more stringent than the provisions 
laid down in the Public Procurement Act. The Ministry proceeded in accordance with the operating manual, 
which described in great detail the method for – and course of – checks on public contracts, the entities 
carrying out the checks, their links, deadlines, sampling, working procedures, and procedures for handling the 
shortcomings identified. The shortcomings identified in the preparation, award and performance of public 
contracts were also part of the project risk analysis.  

The outcome of the Supreme Audit Office’s audit also confirmed that the Ministry’s review system for Priority 
Axis 4 was sufficiently effective. Among seven aid beneficiaries, in the field of procurement the Office 
identified only formal errors or errors with no impact on the course of the selection procedure.’ 

Operational Programme Education for Competitiveness-  

In relation to audited projects under the Operational Programme Education for Competitiveness, the ECA audit 
identified no findings constituting an error in the award of public contracts. 

Operational Programme Prague – Competitiveness- 

56

 
 
 
 
 
The managing authority of the Operational Programme Prague – Competitiveness does not agree with the 
finding and has filed an objection to it. 

Hungary: action taken: NO ; action completed: ; Completion date: 

Factual finding, no action required. 

Portugal: action taken: YES ; action completed: YES ; Completion date: 

As noted in the ECA Annual Report, at the time of the audits, national authorities had already identified the 
cases of non-compliance and had already imposed the necessary financial corrections. 

Slovakia: action taken: YES ; action completed: YES ; Completion date: 

The Ministry of Education, Science, Research and Sport, by way of a letter of 19 March 2015, reference 
number 2015-4218/14077:2-35AA, sent the Supreme Audit Office observations on, among other things, 
Provisional Finding 2517-41 concerning overly specific selection criteria in public procurement procedure; a 
25 % correction had been applied to the procurement of Project 26110130083281, entitled ‘Modernisation of 
the education process at the beneficiary’s primary schools, Slovak Centre of Scientific and Technical 
Information’, before the audit was conducted. This public procurement was the subject of the 2012 
Government Audit A 450 K2855. As this finding had already been remedied by the application of a 25 % 
correction to all contract-related costs, the ECA’s audit team stated that the finding had no financial 
implications. The finding was identified in the report: Audit of the legality and regularity of payments under 
cohesion policy, task: 14ESDDAS, Operational Programme 2007SK05UPO001 Education. 

6.36. 

Ineligible expenditure 

Romania: action taken: YES ; action completed: NO ; Completion date: 

6.36 and 6.37 — MEF- In the course of 2015 DG HCP has taken the following measures to optimise the 
management checks: 

-The revision of the Financial Management Procedure, in particular the specific subsections, with a view to 
developing a verification instrument for the existence of overlapping duties/responsibilities for items  

budgeted in the project, where the reference documents developed by each expert in the project were the  

57

 
 
 
 
6.39. 

Infringements of state aid 
rules 

activity reports; 

-Instruction No 103 on the regulation of matters relating to the monitoring process for  

implementing SOPHRD financing contracts. 

-Development of the Verification methodology for multiple projects 

Belgium: action taken: YES ; action completed: NO ; Completion date: 

L’Autorité d’audit a établi des listes de vérification pour les aides d’Etat, adaptées à chaque programme 
opérationnel.  

Parmi les 554 projets audités entre 2010 et 2014, seuls 16 étaient soumis aux règles en matière d’aides d’Etat. 
Aucun d’entre eux n’a été affecté par une erreur concernant les aides d’Etat. 

Au travers de l’audit de système transversal réalisé en 2010 (codifié FEDER07), l’Autorité d’audit a pu obtenir 
une assurance raisonnable quant au respect de la réglementation « Aides d’Etat » en Région wallonne et au sein 
des organismes intermédiaires ainsi que sur le caractère adéquat des vérifications opérées par ces entités. Le 
système mise en œuvre par l’Autorité de gestion des programmes peut être considéré comme procurant une 
assurance suffisante de sa capacité à respecter les règles communautaires édictées et les procédures définies 
dans le descriptif de gestion et de contrôle du programme. Le fonctionnement est considéré comme bon, seules 
des améliorations mineures sont nécessaires.  

En 2015, l’Autorité d’audit a effectué un audit de système portant sur les exigences clés n°1,4,5 et 7 de 
l’Autorité de Gestion pour ce qui concerne la Direction générale opérationnelle de l’Economie, de l’Emploi et 
de la Recherche (DGO6), et plus particulièrement pour les projets relevant de la mesure 2.2 (valorisation du 
potentiel des centres de recherche) (FEDER17). La CAIF renvoie au plan d’action et à son suivi de décembre 
2015 pour obtenir tout element d’information permettant d’obtenir l’assurance que la règlementation relative 
aux aides d’Etats est respectée par les entités sous audit.  Enfin, l’Autorité d’audit a participé par ailleurs au 
questionnaire de la Cour des comptes européennes pour ce qui concerne la performance en matière d’aides 
d’Etat en 2015. 

Czech Republic: action taken: YES ; action completed: ; Completion date: 

58

 
 
 
-From the point of view of the general ex ante conditionality applicable to Public Aid for ESI funds, action has 
been taken in the form of an Action Plan to comply with general ex ante conditionality 5 – Public aid for the 
effective application of EU legislation relating to public aid in the field of ESI funds. A public aid working 
party has also been established, which meets and works on an ongoing basis. Its members are managing 
authorities, and its meetings discuss and subsequently eliminate any risks. 

-MA-related aid in the Czech Republic is centrally recorded by the following bodies: the Ministry of 
Agriculture (aid in the realms of agriculture, fisheries and forestry) and the Office for the Protection of 
Competition (other types of aid). These coordinating bodies are responsible for holding negotiations with the 
Commission in contentious public aid cases. 

Germany: action taken: YES ; action completed: ; Completion date: 

See the replies in Annex II regarding the audits in question. 

Malta: action taken: YES ; action completed: NO ; Completion date: 

At present, in the case referred to with regard to Malta, the Planning and Priorities Coordination Division 
(PPCD) is still at the stage of receiving a formal letter from the European Commission. Consequently, the date 
of completion is not yet known. Malta will provide full explanations to the European Commission as soon as it 
receives the abovementioned formal letter from the Commission. 

Poland: action taken: NO ; action completed: NO ; Completion date: 

MA I & E OP (CF/ERDF) disputes the Court of Auditors’ findings on the audited I & E OP projects (alleged 
non-compliance with the state aid rules). Detailed explanations are set out in MA I & E OP’s position on 
individual DAS 2014 audits (see replies in Annex II).    

Romania: action taken: YES ; action completed: NO ; Completion date: 

MEF- Based on the comments/recommendations in the ECA Report, MASOPIEC (DG FP) will recover the 
amounts declared ineligible under Government Emergency Order No 66/2011. 

Spain: action taken: ; action completed: ; Completion date: 

One of the projects audited by the Court under DAS 2014 was 'Investments for manufacturing the new vehicle 

59

 
 
 
model C 520 — Ford España S.L. (code V 1239P 12) — Almussafes — Valencia'. The establishment was 
categorised in the interim report as 'Other compliance issue – discrepancy in the percentage of aid intensity'. 

With regard to this finding, we would point out that the European Commission Decision indicates both the net 
percentage (16 %) and the updated percentage (15.6 %).  

While the net percentage remains unchanged, the updated percentage changes according to the period in which 
the investments are made and the subsidies are paid. In the case in hand, the investments were planned over 
two years when the notification was made to the European Commission and the updated subsidy was therefore 
15.6 %. 

The undertaking requested various amendments which were agreed to and investments were made over four 
years, making the resulting updated subsidy (15.8 %) slightly larger in percentage terms than the initial 
subsidy, although the gross subsidy remained 16 % at all times and the final amount paid (gross amount EUR 
24 334 003, which is EUR 22 786 298 in updated terms) was less than the amount initially approved in both 
gross terms (EUR 24 800 000) and updated terms (EUR 23 458 166). 

Therefore there is no discrepancy. The Court noted that the final impact for the ERDF is low. It classified the 
finding as 'other compliance issue' and acknowledged that the finding had no direct financial impact on the 
budget. It cannot therefore be claimed that Spain failed to comply with EU State aid legislation. 

United Kingdom: action taken: YES ; action completed: YES ; Completion date: 

The UK project referenced here is not identified by the ECA so it is not possible to comment on the nature of 
the errors. 

Greece: action taken: YES ; action completed: YES ; Completion date: 09/09/2015 
Removal of actions as State aid from the operational programme (Government Gazette, Series II, No 
1948/2015). 

Croatia: action taken: YES ; action completed: NO ; Completion date:  
In the period 2007-2013, the Republic of Croatia did not use financial instruments due to the fact that the 
implementation of ERDF-funded programmes commenced only in July 2013, following the accession to the 

60

6.43. 

Beneficiaries not reimbursed 
in time and unjustified 
payment of advances to a 
Member State 

6.47. 

Financial Instruments for 
delivering EU funding 

 
 
 
EU. The European Commission approved the operational programme on 5 September 2013, thus setting in 
motion the action taken to establish a system for the use of financial instruments in the Republic of Croatia. 
Preparations for the use of financial instruments in the period 2014-2020 began in 2014 and implementation is 
expected to commence in 2016. 

Ireland: action taken: YES ; action completed: YES ; Completion date: 30/06/2014 
We appreciate the increasing emphasis on Financial Instruments for delivering EU funding across EU funding 
lines and we are engaged in examining opportunities across all relevant sectors. 
As part of our preparations for the 2014-2020 programming period, Ireland worked with the EIB to identify 
programmes suitable for financial instruments. Potentially co-financing an energy efficiency fund under TO4 
was investigated by National Authorities and the Department of Communications, Energy and Natural 
Resources. However, it was found to be unsuitable due to timing differences between fund creation and 
programme adoption, and the selection of a fund manager. 
The EIB also carried out an investigation into utilising financial instruments in the area of social housing 
retrofits and concluded that grants were the most appropriate delivery mechanism. Further assessments were 
carried out by ERDF Managing Authorities for each Investment Priority, concluding there was no scope within 
the proposed programmes at this time, but this will be kept under review. 
The decision was taken in February 2015 not to introduce financial instruments in the ESF HCIOP, but they 
may be implemented at a later date. 
For the EMFF, Ireland has examined the usage of Financial Instruments as part of the preparation of our 
Operational Programme. No decision to use Financial Instruments has been taken at this time, but an ex-ante 
assessment in 2016 will explore this option further as required under the Common Provisions Regulation. 

Luxembourg: action taken: ; action completed:  ; Completion date: 
Le montant de l’enveloppe financière attribuée au FEDER ne permet pas de recourir à des instruments 
financiers en raison du faible effet que cela entraînerait eu égard notamment aux charges administratives que 
l’utilisation de ce type d’instruments entraîne. 
Bulgaria: action taken: ; action completed:  ; Completion date: 
Operational Programme ‘Regional Development’ (OPRD): At present, as part of the JESSICA initiative in Bulgaria, the 

61

6.49. 

Slow implementation of 

 
 
 
 
 
financial instruments 

two Urban Development Funds investing in urban development projects have made significant progress. The Regional 
Urban Development Fund AD and Sustainable Urban Development of Sofia Fund EAD have signed financing 
agreements for a total of 32 urban development projects for a total of BGN 190 million, comprising: BGN 54.2 million 
from the Operational Programme ‘Regional Development’ 2007-2013, 77.9 million in co-financing secured by the Urban 
Development Funds and BGN 57.8 million in project sponsor equity. As of 27 November 2015, Regional Urban 
Development Fund AD has approved financing from the Imputed Loan amounting to BGN 37.2 million or 108.4% of the 
Imputed Loan, including agreements which have been signed for project financing of BGN 29.5 million or 86% of the 
Imputed Loan and financing which has been paid, amounting to BGN 21.3 million or 62% of the Imputed Loan for 
JESSICA. At present, the Sustainable Urban Development of Sofia Fund EAD has agreed financing from the Imputed 
Loan of BGN 24.7 million or 104.5% of the Imputed Loan and has paid BGN 19.2 million or 81% of the Imputed Loan 
for JESSICA. 

Taking into consideration the significant progress achieved in terms of fulfilment and in keeping with the possibilities 
provided by the Commission’s Guidelines on Closure for the 2007–2013 period, the Managing Authority (MA) of the 
OPRD and EIB took measures to extend the periods for investing the finances for both Funds as follows: 

-an extension of the period for investing finances for JESSICA from the Sustainable Urban Development of Sofia Fund 
EAD until 30 June 2016; 

-an extension of the period for investing finances for JESSICA from the Regional Urban Development Fund AD until 31 
October 2016. 

In relation to the above, both Urban Development Funds, based on the significant progress made, announced an interest 
in reinvesting the funds returned from investments in urban development projects under the JESSICA initiative. With this 
in mind, measures were taken to sign Agreements on amending the current Operational Agreements with the European 
Investment Bank in its capacity as a Holding Fund. 

In view of what has been stated so far, the MA of the OPRD considers that the progress made in implementing the 
financial instrument JESSICA during the period following the end of 2013 is significant, as the figures presented above 
prove that Bulgaria is successfully implementing the JESSICA pilot initiative for financing urban development projects 
and has successfully made up on the delay accumulated at the start of the period for investing finances.  

MLSP: Financial instruments have not been used for the OP ‘Human Resource Development’ for the 2007–2013 period.   

Greece: action taken: ; action completed:  ; Completion date: 

62

 
 
 
 
Romania: action taken: YES ; action completed: YES ; Completion date: 

MEF – DGAPE- 

•The implementation of the financial instruments in all the MS was affected, until 2012, by inaccuracies in the 
initial regulatory framework and by an initial lack of flexibility in the financing of working capital to maintain 
current operations, which was essential for companies during the financial crisis. 

•Concerning the measures recommended by the COM to ensure improved implementation of the financial 
instruments, Romania 

(a)has improved monitoring by increasing the number of monitoring and auditing visits and requested the 
financial intermediaries to estimate the monthly results and the progress in achieving the intermediate targets 
set out in the contract; 

(b)has reallocated resources among intermediaries (banks), with the approval of the Investment Committee, 
based on performance; 

(c)has reallocated resources under the SOP IEC 2007-2013 to supplement the JEREMIE budget by EUR 50 
million for the implementation of the interest rate subsidy instrument with risk sharing and carried out a new 
selection process for financial intermediaries. 

•In December 2014, absorption under the JEREMIE instrument had reached 65 %, and in May 2015 it had 
reached 90 % (estimate). The estimated absorption includes: amounts set aside for payments under the loan 
guarantees contracted, amounts paid to SMEs for loans co-financed with risk sharing, amounts paid to SMEs in 
the form of venture capital investment and management costs at the level of the intermediaries and of the 
Holding Fund (EIF). Given the extension of the deadline for implementing the financial instruments until 2016, 
under the amended guidelines on the closure of the programmes issued by the EC in April 2015, Romania has 
supplemented the JEREMIE resources by EUR 75 million, actually paid out to the EIF (JEREMIE holding 
fund) in two instalments, namely in June and October 2015. In total, through the final budget of JEREMIE 
initiative amounting to EUR 225 million, the estimated multiplying effect (expressed in  total funding for 
SMEs) will be more than 2.5 times. 

Slovakia: action taken: YES ; action completed: NO ; Completion date: 

Slovak institutions have done all they can to improve take-up in the implementation of financial instruments in 
Slovakia. Apart from periodic and rigorous monitoring of the performance of financial instruments, action has 

63

 
 
 
 
been taken to improve the flexibility of conditions for financial intermediaries (e.g. the provision of overdrafts, 
increased credit amounts, the cancellation of the guarantee fee, revolving, the financing of working capital, 
etc.). Meetings have been held with financial intermediaries to identify the main hindrances in the 
implementation of financial instruments. These main hindrances were found to be stagnating corporate credit 
on the market, associated with the international financial and economic crisis, as well as technical barriers 
stemming from EU regulations (the preclusion of refinancing, cost reimbursement, the agricultural sector and 
the Bratislava region, the administrative burden of reporting on State aid or de minimis aid at final 
beneficiaries, etc.). The relatively high leverage effect of the guarantee instrument dampened the instrument’s 
success, with additional research into market demand revealing that there was more interest in a risk-sharing 
instrument with less of a leverage effect. Echoing this, financial intermediaries were selected in summer 2015. 
We expect contracts to be concluded with financial intermediaries and the risk-sharing instrument with a lower 
leverage effect to be launched by the end of 2015. The eligibility of expenditure in relation to credit 
instruments requires the disbursement of the credit in its entirety to the financial beneficiary; however, the final 
beneficiary did not take up the resources quickly enough (as investments were being reined in at a time when 
the market situation was precarious). Although refinancing and cost reimbursement have been officially 
precluded, from Slovakia’s perspective there is no legal basis for such curbs. 

6.50. 

Disbursement rate is too low  Greece: action taken: ; action completed:  ; Completion date: 

Spain: action taken: ; action completed:  ; Completion date: 

We agree with the Commission’s response with regard to this finding. 

Spain: action taken: ; action completed:  ; Completion date: 

We agree with the Commission’s response with regard to this finding. 

Box 6.1. 

Examples of serious 

Belgium: action taken: YES ; action completed:  ; Completion date: 

violations of the rules on 
public procurement 

Finland: action taken: YES ; action completed: NO  ; Completion date: 11.12.2015 

Germany: action taken: YES ; action completed: NO ; Completion date: 
Item (a):  Remedial measures were taken to guarantee compliance with procurement provisions and were 
described to the Commission in a letter of 19 November 2015. Consultation is taking place on the amount of 

64

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
the requisite financial correction.  
Item (b): Errors are being thoroughly analysed by the relevant managing authorities and, depending on the type 
of error, enhanced checks by intermediate bodies, adaptation of checklists, training courses or similar actions 
are being undertaken. In the case of the ERDF, moreover, there are regular exchanges regarding the 
commonest sources of error and on remedial action at the meetings of the ERDF managing authority with the 
Federal Ministry for Economic Affairs and Energy, often along with Commission auditors from DG Regio. 

Hungary: action taken: NO ; action completed:  ; Completion date: 
The European Court of Auditors (‘Audit relating to the statement of assurance on the 2014 financial year 
(DAS-2014) – Final audit findings on the payments to the 2007HU161PO007 operational programme – 
Transport – CF –  reference number ARPF-6716’, line section Kisújszállás (excl.)) – Püspökladány (incl.)) 
found that there was an infringement relating to a public procurement procedure and considered that financial 
correction was necessary. However, in this respect Hungary stands by its position presented in its letter of reply 
on the same subject, dated 9 June 2015, in relation to the ECA DAS 2014 ‘Preliminary observations PF-6716’. 
Our legal position is that the Contracting authority of the Member State has clearly acted in accordance with 
EU and national law in what the European Court of Auditors deems an infringement; the bidders were 
excluded in a lawful manner; therefore, there is no room for finding any irregularity or financial corrective 
measures in the case concerned. For that reason, we have not implemented any financial correction, and we 
dispute the finding. 

Italy: action taken: ; action completed:  ; Completion date: 

Malta: action taken: YES ; action completed: NO ; Completion date: 
At present, in the case referred to with regard to Malta, the Planning and Priorities Coordination Division 
(PPCD) is still at the stage of receiving a formal letter from the European Commission. Consequently, the date 
of completion is not yet known. It should be noted that Malta does not agree with the conclusion of the 
European Court of Auditors that Malta used the direct award procedure; in fact, Malta opted for the open 
procedure and subsequently for the negotiated procedure. 

65

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Box 6.2. 

Examples of alleged non-
eligible costs 

Sweden: action taken: ; action completed:  ; Completion date: 
The Court of Auditors has not yet issued a final report following the trilogue in June 2015. Like the 
Commission, Sweden and the responsible authorities are therefore awaiting the report before commenting or 
taking action on the audit. 

United Kingdom: action taken: YES ; action completed: YES ; Completion date: 
The UK project referenced here is not identified by the ECA so it is not possible to comment on the nature of 
the public procurement errors. However,  
ECA acknowledged, in a recent Special Report on Public Procurement issues, the good practices introduced by 
the UK since errors identified in previous years. UK authorities are working to continue the improvement in 
public procurement procedures in structural funds programmes for the 2014-20 period. 
Austria: action taken: YES ; action completed: NO  ; Completion date:  
Regarding e): The project concerned is not included in the expenditure declaration for the time being. The final 
decision on how the case will ultimately be handled has yet to be made. 

Czech Republic: action taken: ; action completed:  ; Completion date: 
The finding (error) covered by the enquiry is unidentifiable (the observation has been described in very broad 
terms). 

Finland: action taken: YES ; action completed: NO ; Completion date: 21.12.2015 
Recovery decisions taken on 12 November 2015 and 16 November 2015. 

Germany: action taken: YES ; action completed:  ; Completion date: 
See the replies in Annex II regarding the audits in question. 

Netherlands: action taken: YES ; action completed: YES ; Completion date: 15 March 2015 
The project is the Aviation Industry Fund (Sectorfonds luchtvaart) project 2010ESFN133. The case relates to 
one invoice for the hire of administrative services, where a section of the services provided related not to the 
action D project examined by the Court but instead to the action J project.  The extrapolation file now includes 
a question expressly asking how far the costs relate to the project (column M in the extrapolation file). 

66

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Poland: action taken: YES ; action completed: NO ; Completion date: 
Activities of the Managing Authority of the Human Capital Operational Programme (MA HC OP, supported 
by the European Social Fund): 
1)as regards sub-point (c), we  assume that the case described involving costs unrelated to the project 
concerned report PF 6758, findings 2518-22, in which operating costs incurred for another project 
(reimbursement of occupational therapy workshops for disabled persons) were shown as an own contribution 
to the project. With regard to those findings, in our reply to the report we asked for the error (PLN 20 001.56, 
extrapolated error: PLN 23 432.03) to be classified as a project selection error by the second-level intermediate 
body (IB II). Errors of this type had been identified by previous EC audits and had given rise to the imposition 
of corrections on some contracts concluded by the second-level intermediate body. The sample covered by the 
Commission's corrections also included the project examined by the Court of Auditors in which the above-
mentioned findings were made. In its final position on the report, the Court of Auditors indicated that the error 
rate had been reduced to 7.84%. In view of the Commission’s previous position on the consumption of this 
error by these corrections, we are waiting to be informed whether further action is needed on these findings or 
whether they can be regarded as closed. The Commission has not indicated its position on this matter to date.  
2)as regards sub-point (d) - in accordance with summary findings 2514-51 of Court of Auditors report No PF-
6638, the amount deemed ineligible on the grounds of irregularities in connection with the implementation of 
counselling and training (including the lack of appropriate training/counselling qualifications) was estimated at 
PLN 25 990. This amount was recovered from the beneficiary (13.08.2015). MA HC OP is waiting to be 
informed by the Commission whether further action is needed on these findings or whether they can be 
regarded as closed. Once this information has been received further action can be taken. 
Activities of the Managing Authority of the Innovative Economy Operational Programme (MA IE OP, 
supported by the European Regional Development Fund): 
The findings of the Court of Auditors report No PF-6442 related to project IE OP.01.01.02-00-069/09 
(Uniwersytet Jagiellonski). The Court of Auditors found that the project payroll costs were ineligible - pay had 
been increased above the maximum basic salary rates, a rise which was unjustified by market conditions. 
By letter dated 26 August 2015 MA IE OP forwarded the final version of the Court of Auditors’ report No PF-
6442 to the appropriate Intermediate Body (which was responsible for supervising implementation of the 
project). MA IE OP will take further action in accordance with the Commission’s position on the matter.   

67

 
 
 
Box 6.3. 

Example of a project 
infringing state aid rules 

Position of the Managing Authority of the Infrastructure and Environment Operational Programme (MA I & E 
OP, supported by the Cohesion Fund/ERDF): 
MA I & E OP disputes the Court of Auditors’ findings on the I & E OP audited projects (alleged non-
compliance with public procurement procedures/contract award procedures). Detailed explanations are set out 
in MA I & E OP’s position on individual DAS 2014 audits. 
Further action under the Śląskie Regional Operational Programme (MA Śląskie ROP, supported by the ERDF): 
On 1 October 2014 the Managing Authority implemented an additional comprehensive ex-post check 
procedure for public procurement contracts submitted by beneficiaries for refunds. In addition to audit 
activities, MA Śląskie ROP places particular emphasis on organising training and practical workshops for 
beneficiaries and MA staff on the application of the Public Procurement Act.   

Portugal: action taken: YES ; action completed:  NO ; Completion date: 
See replies in Annex II of this questionnaire. 

Romania: action taken: YES ; action completed:  YES ; Completion date: 30 June 2015 
MEF – SOPIEC- 
Based on the assessments in ECA Report for 2014 on the Operational Programme for Increase of  
Economic Competitiveness, revealing that the applicants have omitted to declare all partner or linked 
companies, which could lead to losing the status of SME (under Law No 346/2004), MA SOP IEC 
 issued Instruction No 4254 of 26 February 2015, accompanied by a list to review the eligibility of all contracts 
 with SME beneficiaries, co-financed under SOP IEC - Priority Axis 1, both in the sustainability period,  
or under implementation. 
Instruction No 4254 of 26 February 2015 was sent to all RDAs (IB SOP IEC), specifying the  
 clear deadlines for completion and including an additional request to check with the National Trade Register 
Office all firms/natural or legal persons listed in the Confirmation of Company Details as shareholders of the 
beneficiary company. 
The MA SOP IEC, together with the local intermediate bodies, has re-checked, during the period from 
 April to June 2015, 2 200 beneficiaries in order to establish their classification as SME. The information from 
the National Trade Register Office, the platform of the Competition Council and the ARACHNE system was 
used under the re-check as underlying tool. 

68

 
 
 
 
 
Box 6.4. 

Example of an ineligible 
project 

Box 6.5. 

Example of Member States 
not reimbursing beneficiaries 
in time and unjustified 
payment of advances to 
Member States 

Greece: action taken: YES ; action completed: YES ; Completion date: 09/09/2015 
Removal of actions as State aid from the operational programme (Government Gazette, Series II, No 
1948/2015) 
France: action taken: YES ; action completed: YES ; Completion date: 
Sur la programmation 2007-2013, le délai de paiement  d’un bénéficiaire s’explique par les modalités de la 
mise à disposition des crédits en France d’un programme national à gestion déconcentrée. 
En effet, cette mise à disposition s’effectue en 2 temps :  
1- Au niveau national,  l’autorité de gestion en titre  – Délégation générale à l’emploi et à la formation 
professionnelle - DGEFP, produit l’état de répartition régional des crédits à chaque paiement communautaire. 
Ces crédits sont ensuite versés par le service du contrôle budgétaire et comptable ministériel du ministère des 
Finances et des comptes publics ( point unique d’entrée des crédits communautaires pour la France) selon les 
procédures prévues par la circulaire interministérielle CD-0877 du 14 mai 2007 sur le compte ouvert auprès de 
chaque direction régionale des entreprises, de la concurrence, de la consommation, du travail et de l’emploi - 
DIRECCTE (autorité de gestion déléguée) ; 
2- Au niveau régional –  la Direction régionale des finances publiques (DRFiP), autorité de certification du 
programme,  procède au paiement des sommes dues aux bénéficiaires ou aux organismes intermédiaires - OI 
sur demande de la DIRECCTE. Pour le paiement des bénéficiaires conventionnés par un organisme 
intermédiaire, celui-ci assure le paiement des bénéficiaires selon ses modalités propres.  Le délai de versement 
incriminé correspond au cas d’un organisme intermédiaire se situant également en position de bénéficiaire des 
crédits FSE. Le respect d’un paiement dans les plus brefs délais (article 80 du règlement 1803-2006) incombe à 
chaque délégataire de gestion (DIRECCTE ou OI) pour ses bénéficiaires. Par ailleurs, la réglementation 
relative à la programmation 2007-2013 n’impose pas de délai de référence pour le paiement des bénéficiaires. 

Greece: action taken: YES ; action completed: YES ; Completion date: 09/09/2015 
Removal of actions as State aid from the operational programme (Government Gazette, Series II, No 
1948/2015) 

Italy: action taken: ; action completed:  ; Completion date: 

69

 
 
 
 
 
 
Box 6.7. 

Box 6.8. 

Box 6.9. 

Example of projects without 
added value 

Example of indicators not in 
line with OP 

Example of projects with a 
performance based funding 
system 

Netherlands: action taken: YES ; action completed: NO ; Completion date: Not applicable 
-This concerns the following projects: 
o2010ESFN133 Aviation Industry Fund (Sectorfonds luchtvaart, action D) 
o2011ESFN269 VVT (action D) 
o2011ESFN322 TNT (action D) 
o2011ESFN376 KPN (action D) 
o2011ESFN566 KLPD (action D) 
o2011ESFT645 DJI (action D) 
For ESF 2014-2020 the 90-day time-limit will be applied. 
Greece: action taken: ; action completed:  ; Completion date: 
The information is not sufficient for determining the project to which reference is made. 

Italy: action taken: ; action completed:  ; Completion date: 

Romania: action taken: YES ; action completed: YES ; Completion date: 
MEF - SOPIEC 6.9 and 6.10 – MEF – SOPHRD 
MA SOPIEC- 
MA SOPIEC issued Instruction No 19954 of 20 November 2014 applicable to all beneficiaries — productive 
companies - all through the sustainability period. The checks carried out for the Final Progress Report  
and for the final application for reimbursement shall include verification of the degree of achievement of the 
indicators. 
MA SOPHRD- 
Following the EC recommendations, MA SOPHRD reduced the maximum reimbursement ceilings for the 
salaries of the experts employed in the projects financed under the SOPHRD, so that the current ceilings 
(Applicant’s Guide General Conditions 2015) should be aligned to the market prices in Romania, where the 
salaries applied at the MEF are used as reference. 
The ceilings included in the Guide refer to the gross salaries (the net salaries and the contributions of the 
employee). These maximum ceilings were also taken up in the Applicant’s Guide General Conditions related to 
the calls under the OPHC. 

70

 
 
 
Box 6.10. 

Example of national 
eligibility rules going against 
the principle of sound 
financial management 

Italy: action taken: ; action completed:  ; Completion date: 

71

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
CHAPTER 7 – ‘Natural resources’ 

Paragraph 

Observation in the 2014 
Annual Report 

Member State reply 

7.5. 

Single Area Payment Scheme  Bulgaria: action taken: ; action completed:  ; Completion date: 

Cyprus: action taken: YES ; action completed:  YES ; Completion date: 31 December 2014 
The relevant chapter of the report does not include any special mention of Cyprus. 

Czech Republic: action taken: ; action completed:  ; Completion date: 
Irrelevant – there is no error involved. 

Estonia: action taken: YES ; action completed: YES ; Completion date: 

Hungary: action taken: NO ; action completed:  ; Completion date: 
Factual finding, no action required. 

Latvia: action taken: ; action completed:  ; Completion date: 
No comment, as this is a factual finding. Latvia applied SAPS, which provides for an annual single area 
payment for each declared eligible hectare of agricultural land. Latvia also applied four other direct aid 
schemes (specific aid for beef cattle; specific aid for milk; specific aid for improving the quality of starch 
potatoes; specific aid for improving the quality of fodder plant seed and seed potatoes). 

Lithuania: action taken: ; action completed:  ; Completion date: 

Poland: action taken: ; action completed:  ; Completion date: 
note does not contain allegations against Poland 

72

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
7.14. 

Audit scope and approach 
involving an examination of 
transactions for EAGF and 
for ‘Rural development, 
environment, climate action 
and fisheries’ 

Romania: action taken: YES ; action completed: YES ; Completion date: 30 June 2015 
PIAA 

Slovakia: action taken: NO ; action completed:  ; Completion date: 
Slovakia has steadfastly met this requirement. 
Austria: action taken: NO ; action completed:  ; Completion date: 

Belgium: action taken: YES ; action completed: YES ; Completion date: 01/01/2015 

Bulgaria: action taken: ; action completed:  ; Completion date: 

Croatia: action taken: ; action completed:  ; Completion date: 

Czech Republic: action taken: ; action completed:  ; Completion date: 
Irrelevant – there is no error involved. 

Denmark: action taken: ; action completed:  ; Completion date: 
Footnote 4 is a reference to the fact that Denmark was covered by the audit concerned (the Commission’s 
conformity audit), and we have no comments to make on this. 

Estonia: action taken: YES ; action completed: YES ; Completion date: 

Finland: action taken: ; action completed:  ; Completion date: 

France: action taken: YES ; action completed: YES ; Completion date: 
Cf. réponses au chapitre 1-observation 2, infra et à l’annexe II. 

73

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Germany: action taken: NO ; action completed:  ; Completion date: 
For information only; no reply required. 

Greece: action taken: ; action completed:  ; Completion date: 

Hungary: action taken: NO ; action completed:  ; Completion date: 
Factual finding, no action required. 

Ireland: action taken: YES ; action completed:  ; Completion date: 

Italy: action taken: ; action completed:  ; Completion date: 

Latvia: action taken: YES ; action completed: YES ; Completion date: 19 February 2015 
With regard to the error identified in connection with MFF heading No 2 'Natural Resources' (Chapter 7 – 
Natural resources, PF 6625), the Paying Agency has corrected the declaration for the period 16 October 2014 
to 31 December 2014. 

Lithuania: action taken: ; action completed:  ; Completion date: 

Netherlands: action taken: ; action completed:  ; Completion date: Not applicable 

Poland: action taken: ; action completed:  ; Completion date: 
note does not contain allegations against Poland 

Portugal: action taken: ; action completed:  ; Completion date: 
The observation is in line with facts and does not require comment. 

Romania: action taken: YES ; action completed: YES ; Completion date: 30 June 2015 
The comment refers to ECA audit carried out in Romania (R1057765RO01-15BB-PF-6954-DAS14) on the 

74

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
corrective action taken as a result of the comments made in the audit preliminary finding reports PF-4209 
(DAS 2010) and PF-4804 (DAS 2011). The reply of the Romanian authorities — updated at this stage — are 
set out below in Annex 2. PIAA 

Slovakia: action taken: ; action completed:  ; Completion date: 
In our opinion, the text conveys the state of play. 

Spain: action taken: ; action completed:  ; Completion date: 
With regard to the comment on permanent pasture area, in 2015 Spain allocated a new revised Eligibility 
Coefficient, three-factor CAP-2015, in the pasture areas included in the LPIS-GIS to ensure that basic payment 
entitlements are allocated properly in 2015. The CAP-2015 coefficient is a mass automatic three-factor 
eligibility coefficient subject to strict subsequent quality control. It incorporates a third factor (vegetation 
penetrability) which covers eligibility constraints arising from the density of impenetrable tree or bush areas 
that limit accessibility or penetrability by livestock, discounting them from the eligible area. With regard to the 
soil factor, which quantifies the presence of unproductive elements without vegetation such as rocks or bare 
soil, identification of such unproductive elements has been improved by creating Land Cover (LC) complete 
with Rapid Eye satellite imagery (5 pixels x 5 m) which is higher resolution than the previous 20x 20 m 
imagery (Deimos satellite) used for CAP-2013. The slope factor has been kept as it was already included in 
CAP-2013. LIDAR (Laser Imaging Detection and Ranging) aerial images were used to estimate the 
penetrability factor. These are obtained using state-of-the-art laser techniques based on differential reflection 
by vegetation layers of different heights, making it possible to quantify penetrability or accessibility to 
vegetation by livestock.  
The implementation of CAP-2015 forms part of the 'Specific Action Plan concerning the eligibility of pasture 
areas' (Article 41 of Regulation 1306/2014), which is currently in its final stages of application and consists of 
11 specific actions to reduce eligibility and seven accompanying measures for LPIS-GIS update. Action No 1 
is the consolidation of the new CAP 2015 coefficient in LPIS-GIS, No 3 is strict quality control thereof, No 2 
allocates zero admissibility to parcels of permanent pasture with CAP < 20 % and Action No 4 involves the 
application of a CAP = 0 to pasture parcels not declared in the last five years (some 10 million hectares of 
grassland will be affected by this additional action to CAP 2015).  

75

 
 
 
 
 
By application of CAP-2015 (excluding the results of the quality control thereof) for the 2015 year, we have 
reduced the eligible area under pasture by more than 4 million hectares by adding the 2.8 million ha reduced in 
2013 by applying CAP-2013.   
With regard to the comment on a specific case of ineligibility on arable land (motocross trail), we note that the 
Castile-La Mancha AC informed the Court that the motocross trail declaration was identified in February 2014 
when updating LPIS-GIS with the latest available 2012 orthoimages, as outlined by the Commission in its 
reply. The Commission also indicates that the payment had been made in December 2013 because the Castile-
La Mancha authorities had not yet received the LPIS-GIS update. In any event, in November 2014 proceedings 
were initiated for retroactive recovery of all payments granted in the years concerned. This Member State 
believes that this area should not have been included as an area with an error in the Court’s report since, as 
explained above, it was detected by the Castile-La Mancha paying agency in the process of updating the 
orthoimages and was subject to the corresponding backdated recoveries and penalties.  
Any farmer can build a circuit or any other construction on his or her arable parcels and, unless it is subject to 
an on-the-spot check, the possibility of this irregularity being identified arises when the orthoimage is updated 
(this process is repeated every three years). In all cases where the orthoimage detects a case such as the one 
described in Spain, backdated penalties are applied for the four previous years. There is therefore no risk for 
the Fund. 
This Member State considers that the Court believed that the letter informing the parcel holder about the 
detection of a declaration of an area ineligible as arable land had post-dated their visit, meaning that the 
correction was not in line with the procedure established in Spain. The AC of Castile-La Mancha provided 
screen-shots showing that the notification was made in accordance with that procedure, and not as a 
consequence of the Court’s visit to the paying agency. Ultimately, this case demonstrates that the control 
systems in Spain operate properly and ensure the correct recovery of undue payments, due to the measures 
launched under the LPIS-GIS Action Plan in 2010 (including reducing the time between flights from five to 
three years and implementation of a strict procedure for backdated recovery). 

Sweden: action taken: ; action completed:  ; Completion date: 
This comment does not require Sweden to take action. 

76

 
 
 
 
 
Box 7.1. 

Examples of payments for 
overstated eligible land 

United Kingdom: action taken: YES ; action completed: YES ; Completion date: n/a 
This reference confirms that the UK was one of the Member States visited for the EAGF and EAFRD audits in 
2014. 
Czech Republic: action taken: YES ; action completed: NO ; Completion date: 
The Czech authorities assessed all irregularities in cases where the area was overestimated, and appropriate 
action was taken. 

Denmark: action taken: YES ; action completed: YES ; Completion date: 
Our procedure is to carry out a full survey of all applicants for whom the Court of Auditors has identified over-
declaration. It may be the case that the applicant has not over-declared the total area, since the size of some 
areas may have been over-declared and others under-declared. This may mean that there has not been an 
overpayment of aid, even though the Court of Auditors has identified over-declaration on some of the parcels 
selected. In another actual case, excess aid paid out owing to over-declaration was recovered. 

Finland: action taken: YES ; action completed: YES ; Completion date: 19.9.2014 
As is clear from the letter from the Court of Auditors, no errors were detected on the other three inspected 
holdings, which is also an important observation. Therefore, the 6.97 percent DAS error rate concerns just one 
holding. If, for example, concerning the error in surface area, the total area measured during the inspection 
week (72.89 ha) is taken into account, the overstated area (0.40 ha) is 0.55% of the total (without taking into 
account the financial discipline mechanism). On the other hand, the share of the incorrect payments established 
by the Court of Auditors (EUR 156.05) in proportion to the total for the sampled holdings, i.e. EUR 12 060.91 
(EUR 2264.93 for sample 14P1073, EUR 2000.00 for sample 14P1074, EUR 2235.34 for sample 14P1075 and 
EUR 5560.64 for sample 14P1076) is 1.29%. If the farm payments paid to the sampled holdings are taken into 
account in their entirety (totalling EUR 67 351.86), incorrect payments represent 0.23 percent of the total. 
Finnish farmers find the constant changes in surface area difficult to understand. Among other things, 
differences in the update requirements of the land parcel identification system (LPIS) for on-the-spot checks 
(up to a maximum of 0.01 ha of ineligible areas) and for the updating of LPIS (clear and more than 2%) 
repeatedly cause changes in surface area even though neither the parcel nor its borders have changed.  
In accordance with the Court of Auditors’ recommendation 1, in point 7.77, this situation has been corrected 

77

 
 
 
 
 
and the surface area on the basis of which the payment was based has been corrected in line with the 
calculations made by the Court of Auditors. 

France: action taken: YES ; action completed: NO ; Completion date: 
S’agissant du point concernant les cas de surdéclaration des terres éligibles, les réponses des autorités 
françaises sont fournies à l’annexe II pour chaque transaction.  
S’agissant du point relatif aux pâturages permanents, les autorités françaises font part des commentaires 
suivants :  
Dans le cadre du plan d'action Feaga mis en place depuis 2013, les actions suivantes ont été notamment prises 
afin de remettre à jour les parcelles inéligibles : 
- une remise à jour du RPG ,  
- prise de l' arrêté en date du 15 avril 2014 relatif à l’admissibilité de certaines surfaces et modifiant l’arrêté du 
13 juillet 2010 relatif aux règles de bonnes conditions agricoles et environnementales (BCAE) 
- mise à disposition à l'organisme payeur (ASP)  de la liste des codes cultures 2014 qui peuvent être utilisés par 
les agriculteurs pour déclarer les surfaces correspondant à des objets de la couche « végétation » de la BD-Top 

Germany: action taken: YES ; action completed:  ; Completion date: 
See the replies in Annex II regarding the audits in question. 

Greece: action taken: ; action completed:  ; Completion date: 

Italy: action taken: ; action completed:  ; Completion date: 
The enclosed replies (see Annex II) to the European Court of Auditors contain counter-arguments concerning 
the findings on the action of the paying agencies. 

Poland: action taken: YES ; action completed: YES ; Completion date: 28/08/2015 
Audits are performed by the Court of Auditors in the year after the application is submitted. Automatic 
administrative checks on payment applications are carried out for all farmers on the basis of the information in 

78

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
the reference database. The LPIS reference database is updated on the basis of the results of on-the-spot checks 
but, above all, new orthophoto maps which, according to the JRC guidelines (IPSC/G03/P/SKA/ska (2004) 
(2575P) should be updated at least every 5 years. Orthophoto maps are updated every 3 years in Poland.  
In the light of the above, audits by the Court of Auditors may assess applications with reference to 
circumstances which differ from those obtaining in the year in which they were examined. Any irregularities 
detected in the course of ECA audits will be taken into account when processing applications from the ECA 
audit year and, in justified cases, an investigation covering the previous years is conducted, which could result 
in recovery proceedings being instituted for overpayments. 

Slovakia: action taken: YES ; action completed: YES ; Completion date: 30/11/2015 
The Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development notes that on-the-spot checks were carried out at the 
applicants concerned and that, where infringements were found, the payments were adjusted by the relevant 
reduction/withdrawal or by exclusion for purposes of cross-compliance or eligibility conditions. 

Spain: action taken: YES ; action completed: YES ; Completion date: 23 July 2015 
CASTILE-LA MANCHA: The undue payment for the motocross track was detected by the Castile-La Mancha 
paying agency as a result of a LPIS-GIS improvement measure, namely measure 9-10 (retroactivity) which 
makes it possible to detect undue payments due to LPIS-GIS change of use after comparing the beginning and 
end of year caches. This circuit appeared as unproductive in the LPIS-GIS before the ECA, which allowed us 
to identify the undue payment. Furthermore, ineligible areas were detected by applying the pasture eligibility 
coefficient to a permanent pasture parcel. As a result of these findings, on 23 July 2015 a reimbursement 
request decision amounting to EUR -13 772.74 was sent. 

Box 7.2. 

Examples of cross-
compliance errors 

United Kingdom: action taken: YES ; action completed: YES ; Completion date: 
Where over-declared land is established the UK takes the necessary recovery action. 
Belgium: action taken: YES ; action completed: YES ; Completion date: 01/01/2015 

Denmark: action taken: YES ; action completed: NO  ; Completion date: 
An enquiry has been sent to the Commission regarding the interpretation of the EU rules on cross-compliance 

79

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
checks. 

Estonia: action taken: YES ; action completed: YES ; Completion date: 2015  

France: action taken: YES ; action completed: YES ; Completion date: 
Les autorités françaises considèrent comme la Commission que le respect des règles en matière de 
conditionnalité ne constitue pas un critère d'éligibilité et que les réductions appliquées en conséquence ne 
devraient pas être prises en compte pour le calcul des taux d'erreur. Par ailleurs, concernant le non-respect de 
l'ERMG 7 ("identification et enregistrement des bovins") les autorités françaises précisent que la méthode 
adoptée par la Cour dans ses audits (contrôle du respect des délais de notification sur l'ensemble de la période 
du 1er janvier au 31 décembre) n'est pas reproductible lors du contrôle sur place par l'organisme payeur (qui 
effectue le contrôle pour la période du 1er janvier à la date du contrôle). 

Germany: action taken: NO ; action completed:  ; Completion date: 
The responsible authorities point out that the Commission already possesses the requested information, but the 
replies of the audited authority are reiterated below: 
The analysis of the findings and the consequences derived from them regarding the error are incorrect, in the 
view of the paying agency for Bavaria.  
In its informative note 2011/5, the European Commission had intimated that Article 70(4) of Regulation (EC) 
No 1122/2009 was not applicable to any feedback from the cattle database, since infringements had to be 
determined by means of on-the-spot inspections in order to assess the farmer’s compliance with the relevant 
legal requirement as a whole and not only on the basis of information issued from the database. This must 
apply all the more if the bovine database does not provide any automatic feedback. 
In particular, it should be noted that sanctioning on the sole basis of a database query is not possible in cross-
compliance cases, since it has to be established for each infringement whether the farmer was at fault. As a 
rule, this can only be ascertained by means of an on-the-spot inspection. The same applies, for example, to 
false information entered in the database. 
It is pointed out, moreover, that the evaluation of the Livestock Identification and Registration System (HIT) 
database by the paying agency as requested by the ECA constitutes a form of administrative control. The legal 

80

 
 
 
 
 
 
position underlying the ECA’s objection is contrary to Article 49 of Regulation (EC) No 1122/2009, under 
which Member States “may decide to carry out administrative controls” and may determine their extent. In 
accordance with a legally valid definition of the scope of Article 49 of Regulation (EC) No 1122/2009, such 
administrative checks are not conducted in the Länder audited by the ECA in cross-compliance cases.  
In addition, in the view of the Bavarian paying agency, while an on-the-spot inspection conducted in 2014 may 
establish that particular infringements of the legislative act on bovine identification were already being 
committed in 2013, it is not possible to assess these 2013 infringements retrospectively. 
The reported cattle are entered in the stock register in the HIT database that is available to auditors as a basis 
for their audits. Only an on-the-spot inspection, however, which verifies information such as the number of 
cattle actually held and compares this with the figure in the official stock return, can establish the size of the 
discrepancy and hence the gravity of the non-compliance. Moreover, an assessment of infringements must take 
account of all factors that lead to an increase or decrease in the applicable funding reductions. These factors are 
likewise ascertainable by sole means of an on-the-spot inspection.  
Furthermore, the Commission also considers that there are no grounds for including cross-compliance 
infringements in the calculation of the error rate for statements of assurance. In this context, we venture to cite 
the following to the Commission: 
“Most of the cross-compliance requirements, i.e. the SMRs, are to be respected by all EU citizens, 
irrespectively of being a farmer benefiting from EU support under the CAP. The respect of cross-compliance 
does not constitute an eligibility criterion and, therefore, the controls of these requirements do not pertain to the 
legality and regularity of the underlying transactions. Farmers not respecting the requirements are entitled to 
receive their payments, but are sanctioned on the basis of the severity, extent, permanence and repetition of the 
non-compliance found as well as negligence or intent of the farmer concerned. This is also shown by the fact 
that payments can be made before the cross-compliance controls have been completed and that penalties are 
not applied on the payments made in respect of the calendar year when the farmer failed to comply with the 
requirements, but rather on the payments made in respect of the calendar year of the findings by the national 
authorities.  
For all these reasons, the Commission does not itself take violation of cross-compliance obligations into 
account in the calculation of the level of error for its own statement of assurance” (cf. Official Journal of the 
European Union 2012/C 344/1 EN, points 4.16 to 4.18). 

81

 
 
 
Hungary: action taken: YES ; action completed: YES ; Completion date: 01.01.2015 
Since the error identified has already been corrected and is only of marginal significance to animal health/food 
safety, Hungary has applied the early warning method, or 1 % sanctioning, since the 2015 audit year in respect 
of the non-compliance concerned, taking account of the rate of timely and late reporting as well as the average 
number of days in delay. 

Italy: action taken: ; action completed:  ; Completion date: 
The enclosed replies (see Annex II) to the European Court of Auditors contain counter-arguments concerning 
the findings on the action of the paying agencies. 

Netherlands: action taken: NO ; action completed: NO ; Completion date: Not applicable 
In response to the letter setting out the findings of DAS2014 EAGF, the Netherlands stated that it did not share 
the Court of Auditors’ view. The Dutch authorities use the data from the cattle identification and registration 
(I&R) system in the risk analysis that they carry out with a view to random testing for compliance with 
management requirement 7. The reason the data is not used directly is that the apparent infringements 
identified can not be attributed automatically to the farmer concerned. 

Poland: action taken: NO ; action completed: NO ; Completion date: 
According to Commission notice 2011/5, irregularities must be detected by an on-the-spot inspection 
conducted in order to assess overall compliance by the farmer with the legal requirement, and not merely on 
the basis of signals from the database.  
In terms of the requirement to submit animal notifications on time, two irregularities are possible: lack of 
notification or late notification. In the light of the above, information on errors generated by the system for the 
identification and registration of animals does not constitute evidence of an irregularity because, according to 
Commission notice 2011/5, irregularities must be detected by an on-the-spot inspection conducted in order to 
assess overall compliance by the farmer with the legal requirement, and not merely on the basis of signals from 
the database. In addition, in order to properly assess compliance with the requirement to submit animal 
notifications on time, an on-the-spot inspection must be conducted in which checks are carried out on cases 

82

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
where notifications were submitted late and cases where notifications were not submitted at all. Where an on-
the-spot inspection reveals irregularities which occurred in the calendar year in which the inspection was 
carried out, these irregularities are assessed by the inspection body, on the basis of which a reduction may be 
granted if appropriate. 

Slovakia: action taken: NO ; action completed:  ; Completion date: 
The Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development notes that Audit PF-6629 established the following: As 
regards non-compliance with PH 8 (Late reporting of movements in the register of ovine and caprine animals), 
the Slovak authorities told auditors from the Court of Auditors that the recipient of the animals was liable for 
non-compliance with obligations to report changes within seven days and that the beneficiary had no bearing 
on this. Under national legislation and applicable guidelines, it is only the recipient of the animals who notifies 
– and is held solely liable for reporting – their movements within seven days. The evidence took the form of 
acknowledgement of a document submitted during the inspection (postal charges as evidence). The inspected 
beneficiary had complied with this obligation and had demonstrably proved that notification had been sent 
within seven days. In this respect, the beneficiary was not found to have infringed cross-compliance conditions. 
The auditors from the Court of Auditors accepted this explanation by the Slovak authorities and removed this 
finding. 

Spain: action taken: ; action completed:  ; Completion date: 

7.23. 

Errors in the administrative 

processing of aid applications 

by the national authorities 

and two cases where the 

beneficiary or the 

United Kingdom: action taken: YES ; action completed: YES ; Completion date: 
The finding was accepted and the appropriate sanction applied. 
France: action taken: YES ; action completed: YES ; Completion date: décembre 2015 
Concernant le dépassement du plafond de droits à paiement unique, les autorités françaises ont procédé au 
recalcul des valeurs des droits dans le cadre du plan d'action FEAGA. Ce changement sera effectif à partir de 
l'exercice financier 2015 (campagne d'aides 2014) à la suite d'un arrêté fixant le coefficient appliqué à la valeur 
des droits adopté en avril 2014.  
S’agissant du cas visé au point 7.3, les autorités françaises ont contesté le constat de fausse déclaration et 

83

 
 
 
 
 
 
expenditure were not eligible 

for EU aid 

Box 7.3. 

Example of a payment for 
ineligible expenditure 

d’inéligilité de la dépense concernée. Elles ont reconnues, au cas particulier du dossier audité, qu’il aurait été 
préférable, suite aux interrogations suscitées à réception du devis initial, de tracer sur celui-ci les réponses 
apportées par le fournisseur (poste de dépenses figurant sur le devis mais non prises en compte dans le montant 
total de celui-ci puisque faisant l’objet d’une remise commerciale), plutôt que de réceptionner un second devis 
identique en montant mais sur lequel la mention relative à l’enlèvement de l’ancien matériel avait disparu. 
Elles ont par ailleurs souligné que les autorités communautaires ne peuvent ignorer la réalité des pratiques 
économiques qui peuvent conduire les fournisseurs à accorder des remises commerciales. 
Les mesures prises au niveau national ont consisté à exiger des demandeurs que les prestations ou la fourniture 
de matériels réalisés à titre gratuit soient clairement identifiés comme telles sur les devis par l’apposition de la 
mention « réalisée(s) à titre gracieux » ou «offerte(s) » sur les travaux ou fournitures concernées.…)    
Poland: action taken: ; action completed:  ; Completion date: 
An analysis of the entry in ‘Box 7.3 - Example of a payment for ineligible expenditure’ and the entries in 
Annex II does not clearly indicate to which findings in Annex II the following sentence refers: A case where 
aid was paid to an ineligible beneficiary was found in Poland. Furthermore, this sentence does not reflect the 
box heading, which concerns ineligible expenditure, not an ineligible beneficiary. 
There are no findings in Annex II which clearly indicate that funds were paid to an ineligible beneficiary. 
There are findings in Annex II which concern ineligible expenditure, namely: 
1,036,65
Chapter 7 - 
6.75
Natural 
resources 
PF 6748 

Ineligible costs. Non-
compliance with private 
procurement procedures. 
Weaknesses in administrative 
checks. 

14.P.NR2.
1524-02 

0.03

Box 7.5. 

Example of non-compliance 
with agri-environment 
commitments 

These findings relate to Measure 123 of the RDP and refer to ECA findings under the heading: Ineligible costs. Non-
compliance with private procurement procedures. Weaknesses in administrative checks. 

Germany: action taken: NO ; action completed:  ; Completion date: 
The responsible authorities point out that the Commission already possesses the requested information. 

Italy: action taken: ; action completed:  ; Completion date: 

84

 
 
 
 
 
Box 7.6. 

Example of non-respect of 
public procurement rules 

The enclosed replies (see Annex II) to the European Court of Auditors contain counter-arguments concerning 
the findings on the action of the paying agencies. 

United Kingdom: action taken:YES ; action completed: YES ; Completion date: 
The finding was accepted and the appropriate sanction applied. 
Bulgaria: action taken: YES ; action completed: YES ; Completion date: 12 September 2014 
Ministry of Agriculture and Food (MZH): Amendments have been made to the operating procedures, relating 
to an ex ante and ex post check on the public procurement procedures carried out by the beneficiaries of the 
Rural Development Programme (RDP). After completing analyses related to the identified errors, the State 
Fund for Agriculture (DFZ) drew up guidelines for the beneficiaries, with the aim of improving the process of 
carrying out public procurement procedures when selecting contractors to carry out activities under the RDP. 
A subsequent procedure has been devised for assessing the criteria under the Public Procurement Act (ZOP) 
prior to payment. At the moment, an entirely new Public Procurement Act is being drafted, which will reduce 
significantly the rate of errors when carrying out tender procedures.  
Audit Office: A report has been published on the website of the Bulgarian National Audit Office entitled 
‘Analysis of the errors in applying European and national public procurement regulations under Structural 
Funds programmes’, adopted by the Contact Committee of the Heads of Supreme Audit Institutions of the 
European Union and the ECA at a meeting held in Riga, Latvia on 19 June 2015. The report contains a 
summary of the main reasons resulting in non-compliance with the public procurement procedure regulations 
for projects co-financed mainly by the European Social Fund and the European Fund for Regional 
Development and, in rare instances, by the Cohesion Fund 
(https://www.bulnao.government.bg/bg/articles/kontakten-komitet-na-voi-ot-es-i-esp-81). 

France: action taken: YES ; action completed: YES ; Completion date: 
Les autorités françaises, dans le cadre de leur plan d'action Feader, ont prévu des dispositions relatives au 
contrôle des marchés publics dans une note du 18 octobre 2012 relative aux contrôles des mesures du 
développement rural pour les actions immatérielles. Il est prévu que les marchés au-delà d’un seuil de 20 000 
euros sont présentés par l'instructeur du dossier Feader au contrôle de légalité effectué par les services 
préfectoraux, qui comprend notamment des vérifications concernant la sélection des offres. Un traçage du 

85

 
 
 
 
 
contrôle est prévu. Voir annexe III, questions 3.5 et 3.6. 

Germany: action taken: YES ; action completed: YES ; Completion date: 
The Commission already possesses the action plan of the EAFRD paying agency for Saxony-Anhalt, reflecting 
the situation as of October 2015. 

Greece: action taken: ; action completed:  ; Completion date: 

Italy: action taken: ; action completed:  ; Completion date: 
The enclosed replies (see Annex II) to the European Court of Auditors contain counter-arguments concerning 
the findings on the action of the paying agencies. 

Netherlands: action taken: YES ; action completed: NO ; Completion date: Ongoing 
For further information see the Dutch action plan for the error rate in rural development, letter ref. 
RVO/2015/842, 27 October 2015. 

Poland: action taken: YES ; action completed: YES ; Completion date: April 2014 
The case was re-examined by the Implementing Authority (provincial government). The position was 
submitted by way of an explanatory memorandum to the preliminary report. We maintain this position on the 
grounds that no errors occurred which affected the outcome of proceedings.  
As part of training for implementing authorities, information is provided on errors made by beneficiaries in 
public procurement procedures. In the 2014-20 programming period a schedule (‘taryfikator’) was introduced 
whereby penalties for beneficiaries could be modulated according to the type of infringement of the public 
procurement rules involved, and not only for infringements which affected the outcome of proceedings. 

Romania: action taken: YES ; action completed: ; Completion date: 
AFIR- See AFIR Reply No 31690 of 17 September 2014 (attached) concerning the comments 
 made by the ECA auditors following the audit mission for the Statement of Assurance  

86

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
for financial year 2014 (DAS 2014) – PF6314: audit of the expenditure related to EAFRD, mission  
conducted between 12 and 16 May 2014 and AFIR Reply No 14283 of 17 April 2015 (attached)  
concerning the comments made by the ECA auditors following the audit mission for the Statement of 
Assurance for financial year 2014 (DAS 2014) – PF6754: audit of the expenditure related to EAFRD,  
mission carried out from 17 to 21 November 2014.  
Other comments: MEF - DCSM - BCMAP 
The national public procurement strategy for the period 2015-2020 includes actions  
to ensure the regularity and quality of the public procurement process. One of the measures aimed 
 at achieving this objective is the development and strengthening of internal control at the 
 contracting authorities by: adapting the internal control standards in the 
 procurement area, issuing guidelines/guidance on the internal control system, improving the efficiency 
 of preventive financial control related to public procurement, providing training programmes 
 for staff carrying out financial control in public procurement. 
The internal control process will include at least the following stages: procurement preparation, drafting of the 
award documentation, conduct of the award procedure, and contract implementation. It will be organised in 
such a way as to enable external control focused on substantive issues. The development of this type of internal 
control would significantly reduce, from an early stage, the risk of irregularities and errors and would ensure 
the achievement of the contracting authorities’ objective of getting the best value for money. 
The internal control system will also include a policy document on conflicts of interest. 

Spain: action taken: YES ; action completed: NO ; Completion date: 1 April 2016 
The adopted measure will end with the correct allocation of the definitive basic payment entitlements in April 
2016 based on the new estimate of eligible area. 

7.37. 

Member States' systems 
related to regularity of EAGF 
transactions 

Croatia: action taken: YES ; action completed: YES ; Completion date: 01/03/2015 
All of the Court’s findings are accepted, and action has been taken to address the shortcomings detailed in 
Annex II. 

Box 7.7. 

Member States in which 

Bulgaria: action taken: YES ; action completed: YES ; Completion date: 2011 

87

 
 
 
 
 
remedial action concerning 
LPIS weaknesses was 
satisfactory 

МZH (Ministry of Agriculture and Food): The implementation of the action plan for the period 2009 to 2011 
led to improvements in the LPIS. The State Fund for Agriculture’s ‘Technical Inspectorate’ submits figures to 
the MZH to update the LPIS annually after the end of the on-the-spot check campaign. 

Box 7.8. 

Member States where LPIS 
weaknesses persist 

Portugal: action taken: ; action completed:  ; Completion date: 
The observation is in line with facts and does not require comment. However, it should be noted that the 
findings confirm Portugal's efforts in the implementation of corrective measures. 

Romania: action taken: YES ; action completed: YES ; Completion date: 
PIAA, through the measures taken to update the LPIS on the basis of new imagery, to update following the on-
the-spot check, to update based on the notifications made by the farmers, ensures permanently that the 
reference areas are eligible for payment. Moreover, ECA itself, in its letter of 30 July 2015 (R1057765RO01-
15BB-PF-6954-DAS14) stated that ‘having regard to all the findings  
mentioned above, the auditors consider that the updating of the LPIS has significantly improved the reliability  
of the data recorded in this system’. 
Greece: action taken: ; action completed:  ; Completion date: 

Italy: action taken: ; action completed:  ; Completion date: 
The enclosed replies (see Annex II) to the European Court of Auditors contain counter-arguments concerning 
the findings on the action of the paying agencies. 

Spain: With regard to the information contained in the Commission’s reply (box 7.8), this Member State 
would like to make the following clarification about the next paragraph in the box, which states: 'The follow-up 
audits carried out by the Commission on the implementation of the action plans have identified similar 
deficiencies. The Commission is of the view that while considerable remedial work has been carried out, some 
deficiencies persist with regard to the eligibility for permanent pasture in Greece and Spain. The Commission 
would, however, like to point out that the remedial actions carried out in 2014 and 2015 have proved 
satisfactory for both countries, resulting in ineligible areas being excluded from both LPIS: in Greece, the area 

88

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
registered as permanent pasture decreased from 3.6 million ha to 1.5 million ha, while in Spain eligible land 
decreased from 18.4 million ha to 15.6 million ha.' The figures indicated of 18.4 to 15.6 million hectares (2.8 
million) concern the implementation of two-factor CAP-2013 (slope and soil) together with the CAPs of 
Autonomous Communities that already had coefficients for the 2013 claim year. Exactly 2 810 336 ha were 
deducted, which were not eligible in claim year 2013. The reference made by the Commission to the claim 
years 2014 and 2015 is not correct. For Spain this should read 'applied until the 2013 claim year'. In the 2014 
campaign some Autonomous Communities such as Andalusia and Extremadura implemented additional 
measures that further reduced the eligible area indicated. However, it is in the current year 2015 when Spain 
has developed a three-factor CAP-2015 (slope, soil and penetrability to vegetation) as an essential part of the 
action plan for pasture (Article 41 of Regulation 1306/2014) implemented at the request of the European 
Commission during 2015 in order to ensure that the eligibility of areas of pasture with bushes and trees is 
reduced according to European legislation, and to thereby ensure the proper allocation of basic payment 
entitlements in the 2015 claim year. CAP 2015 is an improved automatic eligibility coefficient which increases 
the accuracy of soil cover by deducting a larger number of unproductive areas and includes an additional factor 
for penetrability of vegetation which limits the eligibility of areas with a high density of trees or shrubs. The 
action plan as a whole contains 11 specific actions to reduce eligibility and seven accompanying measures for 
LPIS-GIS update. Action No 1 is the consolidation of the new coefficient in LPIS-GIS, No 3 is strict quality 
control thereof, No 2 allocates zero admissibility to parcels of permanent pasture with CAP 2015 < 20 % and 
Action No 4 involves the application of a CAP = 0 to pasture parcels not declared in the last five years (some 
10 million hectares of grassland will be affected by this additional action to CAP 2015). Note. A presentation 
of the Action Plan 2015 can be provided to the Court if it so wishes, with the explanation of the remaining 
actions and support measures. With reference only to pasture land declared (as explained, many of the areas 
not declared were charged with a CAP=0), the reduction in pasture eligibility by application of CAP-2015 
(without including quality control) has given the following results:   
    No of  
    records declared 
PA 
PR 
PS 

   675 091          3 531 308.46                 2 148 876.35 
                3 061 472.75 
4 190 576 
                1 713 861.96 
2 210 492 

          60.85 % 
          55.88 % 
          87.83 % 

5 479 019.41 
1 951 272.94 

               Elig. Area (ha) 

           Total (ha) 

% 

89

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
7 076 159 

10 961 600.81                 6 924 211.06 

          63.17 % 

To sum up, in the 2015 claim year, the area eligible for pasture was reduced by more than 4 million hectares, 
added to the 2.8 million reported by the Commission in the 2013 claim year. 

EXTREMADURA- action taken: YES ; action completed: YES ; Completion date: 10 November 2015 

In Extremadura, work started in 2013 on incorporating an improved CAP to calculate the impenetrability of 
pastures in 2014. This CAP used Landsat images from several dates and the assessment was made by pasture 
type. Ineligible features (rocks) located by SIOSE [Spanish land cover and use information system] were 
deducted. This CAP was in place in the declaration and payment of pastures in claim year 2014 and achieved 
significant progress in terms of pasture eligibility due to penetrability. Its replacement in 2015 by the Spanish 
Agricultural Guarantee Fund [FEGA] CAP based on LIDAR technology and additional checks on pasture, 
such as the assessment of new areas declared, and other measures proposed by the FEGA increase the 
dependability of findings on eligibility. The AC of Extremadura finalised the validation of the CAP 2015 in 
their territory with the statistical method proposed by FEGA, the results of which have been sent to the 
Ministry for assessment by the Commission.  Evaluation of this study validates the CAP in Extremadura for all 
strata surveyed, with a small correction in wooded pasture with a CAP of less than 50 %, where the CAP for 
this stratum is reduced by 16 %. 

CASTILE-LA MANCHA- action taken: YES ; action completed: NO ; Completion date:  

As indicated by the ECA, the LPIS-GIS (SIGPAC) launched CAP 2015 in Spain and thus also in the 
Autonomous Community of Castile La Mancha which has remedied the deficiencies noted in previous years. 
Implementation of the CAP in Castile-La Mancha is subject to an action plan comprising a stage of 
implementation (already completed), validation (already completed) and maintenance (ongoing). 
Bulgaria: action taken: ; action completed:  ; Completion date: 

Greece: action taken: ; action completed:  ; Completion date: 

90

Table 7.1. 

Financial corrections by the 
Commission for system 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
               
 
 
 
 
 
 
weaknesses in LPIS 

Italy: action taken: ; action completed:  ; Completion date: 

Portugal: action taken: ; action completed:  ; Completion date: 
The observation is in line with facts and does not require comment. 

Romania: action taken: YES ; action completed: YES ; Completion date: 
PIAA, through the measures taken to update the LPIS on the basis of new imagery,  
 to update following the on-the-spot check, to update based on the notifications made by the farmers,  
ensures permanently that the reference areas are eligible for payment. Moreover, ECA itself,  
in its letter of 30 July 2015, (R1057765RO01-15BB-PF-6954-DAS14), pointed out that ‘having regard to 
 all the above findings, the auditors consider that the update of the LPIS system  
has significantly improved the reliability of the data recorded in this system’. 

Spain: action taken: ; action completed:  ; Completion date: 

7.42. 

Follow-up given to our 
findings by the Commission 

Italy: action taken: ; action completed:  ; Completion date: 
The enclosed replies (see Annex II) to the European Court of Auditors contain counter-arguments concerning 
the findings on the action of the paying agencies. 

7.43. 

7.46. 

Reducing EAGF payments 
for Greece 

Assessment of the 
reinforcement of assurance 
exercise 

Spain: action taken: ; action completed:  ; Completion date: 
We agree with the Commission’s response with regard to this finding. 
Greece: action taken: ; action completed:  ; Completion date: 

Bulgaria: action taken: ; action completed:  ; Completion date: 

Greece: action taken: ; action completed:  ; Completion date: 

91

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Italy: action taken: ; action completed:  ; Completion date: 
The enclosed replies (see Annex II) to the European Court of Auditors contain counter-arguments concerning 
the findings on the action of the paying agencies. 

Luxembourg: action taken: ; action completed:  ; Completion date: 

Romania: action taken: YES ; action completed: YES ; Completion date: 
PIAA In the ECA report for financial year 2011, the reply of the Commission points out  
that: ‘3.39. The Commission would like to point out that the certification body did not certify the statistics in 
any of the cases.’ This was therefore clarified and verified by the EC in the previous years. 

United Kingdom: action taken: YES ; action completed: YES ; Completion date: 
This reference confirms that the UK was one of the member States visited for the reinforcement of assurance 
procedure in 2014. 
Greece: action taken: ; action completed:  ; Completion date: 

Luxembourg: action taken: ; action completed:  ; Completion date: 

Ireland: action taken: YES ; action completed:  ; Completion date: 

Italy: action taken: ; action completed:  ; Completion date: 
The enclosed replies (see Annex II) to the European Court of Auditors contain counter-arguments concerning 
the findings on the action of the paying agencies. 

Romania: action taken: YES ; action completed: YES ; Completion date: 
Based on the findings and recommendations received from the external auditors, and also at the request of the 

92

7.48. 

7.50. 

7.52. 

Assessment of the 
reinforcement of assurance 
exercise 

Assessment of the 
reinforcement of assurance 
exercise 

Assessment of the 
reinforcement of assurance 
exercise 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
European Commission, PIAA has drawn up the action plan for reducing the error rate for rural development 
measures whose implementation has been delegated by AFIR. This Plan included the main causes which led to 
deficiencies in the functioning of the system, as well as the remedial measures  
and the related deadlines. At that point, all the measures were implemented — for the programming period 
2007-2013. 

Box 7.9. 

Examples showing that 
Member States' action plans 
are not yet fully effective 

Sweden: action taken: ; action completed:  ; Completion date: 
This comment does not require Sweden to take action. 
Ireland: action taken: YES ; action completed: NO ; Completion date: Ongoing 
A new Action Plan was submitted mid-2015 and is being implemented. 

7.57. 

Member States' systems 
related to regularity of 
transactions under the 
European Fisheries Fund 
(EFF) 

Romania: action taken: YES ; action completed: NO ; Completion date: 
AFIR Following receipt from the Certification Body of the state of implementation 
 of the recommendations updated in October 2015, the Agency has updated and forwarded to the Competent 
Authority the action plan for the implementation of the recommendations and for correction of the deficiencies 
 found by the CB auditors. Please note that this Plan is regularly updated and sent to 
 the Competent Authority. See the document ‘Action Plan for recommendation implementation’. 
Italy: action taken: ; action completed:  ; Completion date: 
We note the content of Comment No 11. 
In view of paragraph 7.58 of the 2014 Annual Report: 

''7.58. Although we consider the methodology used in the operations and systems audits to be effective, we 
have found shortcomings in the management and documentation of audit activities and in the verification of 
eligibility conditions. 
The audit authority did not carry out the audit activities as planned. 
No formal procedures were established for quality control, the audit documentation was inadequate, and the 
sampling method did not comply with the Commission's guidelines. 
Although these shortcomings were identified by the Commission in the course of its previous audits, at the 
time of our audit they had still not been completely eliminated by the audit authority. 

93

 
 
 
 
 
 
In some cases, the audit authority did not carry out the on-the-spot checks required and did not perform 
adequate checks on the eligibility conditions for vessels that had received financing for permanently ceasing 
their activities.''; we would like to point out the following: 

The Italian authorities have not completed their own audit activities as planned. 
Following the EU departments' findings in 2012 (reported in the ACR 2011), the AA interrupted the checks 
that were under way and carried out the audit activities again on a new sample of the expenditure certified in 
2010. This had inevitable repercussions on the timing of the preparatory work prior to sending the Annual 
Control Reports for the following years, including for 2013, which was the subject of checks by the European 
Court of Auditors. 
Lack of written procedures for the 'quality review'. 
The documentation for the audits carried out is inconsistent. 
Sampling methodology. 
The AA asked the Inspectorate-General for Financial Relations with the EU (IGRUE) for the quality-review 
checklists already adopted for the activities reported in the ACR 2015 for systems audits. This made it possible 
to respond to the European Court of Auditors' finding concerning the documentary shortcomings for the 
systems audits. 
The sampling method used to extract the sample from the certified expenses for 2012 made provision for the 
use of the Community share alone, because the EU share alone represented 51 % of the total certified. In the 
ACR 2013 provision had already been made for the private share to be used to extract the sample in subsequent 
years. This methodology was therefore adopted for the sample taken from the 2013 certified expenses. 
No on-the-spot checks carried out in the operations audit. 
With regard to on-the-spot checks, the European Court of Auditors commented on five of the thirty projects 
selected. Of these five projects, four had the photographic documentation attached to the file, and for the other, 
the invoices were certified by the Italian shipping register (RINA).  
However, in view of the comment made, in 2014 the inspectors were informed that on-the-spot checks do not 
have to be carried out only where there is an irregularity entailing recovery of the entire contribution.  
Inadequate checks on the actual fishing activities of fishing boats that have permanently ceased fishing 
activities. 

94

 
 
 
 
7.69. 

Significant number of 
individual systems for 
EAFRD 

Box 7.10. 

Examples of good and bad 
practices in targeting and 
selection 

7.85. 

Measure ‘Increasing the 
added value to basic 
agricultural and forestry 
production’. 

In letter ref. Ares(2015)2684786 of 26 June 2015, the Commission asked the AA to conduct checks on the 
actual fishing activities on a representative sample using VMS data and ships' logs. The results were sent in 
letter ref. CCSPU.2015.904 of 16 November 2015. 
Germany: action taken: NO ; action completed:  ; Completion date: 
For information only; no reply required. 

Italy: action taken: ; action completed:  ; Completion date: 

Spain: action taken: ; action completed:  ; Completion date: 
We agree with the Commission’s response with regard to this finding. 
Bulgaria: action taken: NO ; action completed:  ; Completion date: 
MZH: The Bulgarian authorities would like to point out that the requirements of Article 43 of Regulation (EC) 
No 1974/2006 are correctly implemented in the 2007-2013 RDP. They are part of the compulsory content of 
any Rural Development Programme, as specified in paragraph 5.2 of Annex II to Regulation (EC) No 
1974/2006: ‘…Evidence that for investment measures support is targeted on clearly defined objectives 
reflecting identified territorial needs and structural disadvantages...’. Investment support for measure 123 is 
targeted at the entire food and forestry sector, with the eligible types of enterprises and eligible activities being 
defined accordingly in Regulations (EC) No 1698/2005 and (EC) No 1974/2006 respectively.   
Poland: action taken: YES ; action completed: YES ; Completion date: 12.12.2014 (the European Commission 
implementing decision approving the rural development programme for Poland for the aid objectives enshrined 
in the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development 2014PL06RDNP001 dated 12 December 2014) 

In the 2014-20 RDP under priority 6 - ‘Promoting social inclusion, poverty reduction and economic 
development in rural areas’, specific objective 6A ‘Facilitating diversification, creation and development of 
small enterprises and job creation’, provision was made for the ‘Farm and business development’ measure, 
submeasure ‘Business start-up aid for non-agricultural activities in rural areas’.  
The ‘Business start-up aid for non-agricultural activities in rural areas’ submeasure implements the 
aforementioned specific objective 6A. This submeasure will support non-agricultural activities undertaken by 
farmers, farmers’ spouses, other members of the household and beneficiaries of payments to small farms so 

95

 
 
 
 
 
 
that they can generate income from sources other than agriculture.  
Under the RDP, preference will be given to projects involving job creation (annual average full-time 
equivalent) (not applicable to the self-employed) and projects carried out by persons resident in the districts 
with the highest unemployment in the province. 
Under the aforementioned objective 6A, the indicator identified in the RDP (Chapter 11) is: Jobs created in 
supported projects in which the indicator target was estimated at 16 550 (jobs). 
In addition, under specific objective 6B Promoting local development in rural areas, provision was made for 
LEADER actions. As part of LEADER, enterprise development projects in the broad sense of the term will be 
implemented and activities designed to provide e.g. persons planning to start a business in addition to farming 
activities and persons leaving farming with the necessary knowledge or skills and qualifications will be 
supported. The objective will be to get disadvantaged groups and the unemployed into work, cooperation 
between local action groups (LAGs) and businesses to identify possible employment opportunities for people 
from the Local Development Strategy area (LDS), networking between bodies working with disadvantaged 
groups and the unemployed, such as: welfare centres, job centres and agricultural advisory centres.  
Under the aforementioned objective 6B, the indicator identified in the RDP (Chapter 11) is: Jobs created in 
LEADER supported projects in which the indicator target was estimated at 5 943 (jobs). 
The Regulation of the Minister for Agriculture and Rural Development of 24 September 2015 setting out the 
detailed conditions and arrangements for granting financial aid under the ‘Support for implementation of 
operations under the community-led local development strategy’ measure in the 2014-20 RDP (Journal of 
Laws, item 1570) indicates that aid is granted to projects involving start-ups which involve:  
1) the creation of at least one job (annual average full-time equivalent), this being justified by the scope of the 
project, and the person for whom this job is created will be employed on the basis of an employment contract 
or collective employment contract; 
2) the job referred to in point 1 will be preserved for at least 2 years after the final payment date. 
Aid for projects involving the development of business activities will be granted if the project complies with 
the following conditions: 
1) the creation of at least one job (annual average full-time equivalent), this being justified by the scope of the 
project, and the person for whom this job is created will be employed on the basis of an employment contract 
or collective employment contract; 

96

 
 
 
7.87. 

Measure ‘Support for the 
creation and development of 
micro-enterprises' 

2) the job referred to in point 1 will be preserved for at least 3 years after the final payment date. 
The Regulation of the Minister for Agriculture and Rural Development setting out the detailed conditions and 
procedures for granting financial aid under the ‘Business start-up aid for non-agricultural activities in rural 
areas’ sub-measure assumes that the order in which aid is awarded is determined by the total number of points 
awarded on the basis of the selection criteria, including: ‘If, including self-employment, the business plan 
provides for the creation of: 
1) at least 2 and fewer than 3 jobs (annual average full-time equivalent) - 3 points shall be awarded; 
2) 3 or more jobs (annual average full-time equivalent) - 4 points shall be awarded’. 
Poland: action taken: YES ; action completed: YES ; Completion date: 12.12.2014 (the European Commission 
implementing decision approving the rural development programme for Poland for the aid objectives enshrined 
in the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development 2014PL06RDNP001 dated 12 December 2014) 

Cf. clarifications on remark 7. In the 2014-20 RDP under priority 6 - ‘Promoting social inclusion, poverty 
reduction and economic development in rural areas’, specific objective 6A ‘Facilitating diversification, 
creation and development of small enterprises and job creation’, provision was made for the ‘Farm and 
business development’ measure, submeasure ‘Business start-up aid for non-agricultural activities in rural 
areas’.  
The ‘Business start-up aid for non-agricultural activities in rural areas’ submeasure implements the 
aforementioned specific objective 6A. This submeasure will support non-agricultural activities undertaken by 
farmers, farmers’ spouses, other members of the household and beneficiaries of payments to small farms so 
that they can generate income from sources other than agriculture.  
Under the RDP, preference will be given to projects involving job creation (annual average full-time 
equivalent) (not applicable to the self-employed) and projects carried out by persons resident in the districts 
with the highest unemployment in the province. 
Under the aforementioned objective 6A, the indicator identified in the RDP (Chapter 11) is: Jobs created in 
supported projects in which the indicator target was estimated at 16 550 (jobs). 
In addition, under specific objective 6B Promoting local development in rural areas, provision was made for 
LEADER actions. As part of LEADER, enterprise development projects in the broad sense of the term will be 
implemented and activities designed to provide e.g. persons planning to start a business in addition to farming 

97

 
 
 
 
activities and persons leaving farming with the necessary knowledge or skills and qualifications will be 
supported. The objective will be to get disadvantaged groups and the unemployed into work, cooperation 
between local action groups (LAGs) and businesses to identify possible employment opportunities for people 
from the Local Development Strategy area (LDS), networking between bodies working with disadvantaged 
groups and the unemployed, such as: welfare centres, job centres and agricultural advisory centres.  
Under the aforementioned objective 6 B, the indicator identified in the RDP (Chapter 11) is: Jobs created in 
LEADER supported projects in which the indicator target was estimated at 5 943 (jobs). 
The Regulation of the Minister for Agriculture and Rural Development of 24 September 2015 setting out the 
detailed conditions and arrangements for granting financial aid under the ‘Support for implementation of 
operations under the community-led local development strategy’ measure in the 2014-20 RDP (Journal of 
Laws, item 1570) indicates that aid is granted to projects involving start-ups which involve:  
1) the creation of at least one job (annual average full-time equivalent), this being justified by the scope of the 
project, and the person for whom this job is created will be employed on the basis of an employment contract 
or collective employment contract; 
2) the job referred to in point 1 will be preserved for at least 2 years after the final payment date. 
Aid for projects involving the development of business activities will be granted if the project complies with 
the following conditions: 
1) the creation of at least one job (annual average full-time equivalent), this being justified by the scope of the 
project, and the person for whom this job is created will be employed on the basis of an employment contract 
or collective employment contract; 
2) the job referred to in point 1 will be preserved for at least 3 years after the final payment date. 
The Regulation of the Minister for Agriculture and Rural Development setting out the detailed conditions and 
procedures for granting financial aid under the ‘Business start-up aid for non-agricultural activities in rural 
areas’ sub-measure assumes that the order in which aid is awarded is determined by the total number of points 
awarded on the basis of the selection criteria, including: ‘If, taking self-employment on board, the business 
plan provides for the creation of: 
1) at least 2 and fewer than 3 jobs (annual average full-time equivalent) - 3 points shall be awarded; 
2) 3 or more jobs (annual average full-time equivalent) - 4 points shall be awarded’. 

Box 7.11. 

Examples of lack of evidence  Netherlands: action taken: NO ; action completed: NO ; Completion date: Not applicable 

98

 
 
 
that costs were reasonable 

The Netherlands does not share the Court of Auditors’ view, as already explained in the response to the 
findings (letter ref. DGAN-ELVV/15052450, sent 19 May 2015). 

Portugal: action taken: ; action completed:  ; Completion date: 
In the Forestry Operations Monitoring Committee (CAOF) table, there are different types of forestry 
intervention which may be used to ‘control vegetation’. In this operation three types of intervention were 
considered: total spontaneous vegetation control (1) and spontaneous vegetation control in lines or locally (2) 
and cleaning of woods (3). 
Such forest intervention has different human and material resource allocation requirements to deal with the 
characteristics of the vegetation and terrain. The CAOF tables set out the different types of operations and 
associated unit costs, which were taken into account in the analysis of the reasonableness of the costs by the 
technical analyst. 
For the type of forest 'vegetation control' operation in question, working conditions in the area to be cleaned 
were evaluated by the technical analyst, for each site, comparing these conditions with relief and other 
information in military maps and orthophotomaps provided by the promotor in the application. After 
performing verification calculations, the technical analyst accepted the values proposed by the promoter. 

99

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
ANNEX III A 

Part A.  Please reply to the general questions below   

1) Performance 
The 2014 Annual Report of the European Court of Auditors (ECA), Chapter 3 "Getting Results from the EU Budget" analyses performance from 
the perspective of the Europe2020 Strategy and examines the performance features introduced with the new MFF 2014-2020. 

Question addressed to all Member States: 

1.1 Is your Member State already using/planning to use the “Common Indicators” introduced for the following five EU funds (please tick the 
appropriate boxes): 

EAFRD   

Yes     

 No       If No, please explain why not  

EMFF     

Yes     

 No  

If No, please explain why not 

ESF         

Yes     

 No 

If No, please explain why not 

ERDF      

Yes     

 No 

If No, please explain why not 

CF           

Yes     

 No 

If No, please explain why not 

 1.2 What additional or complementary performance indicators is your Member State using/planning to use to provide information about the 
results obtained from programs organized using these funds? 

100

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
   
  
1.3 Do you anticipate that your Member State will be able to provide meaningful data which will be available for use in the MFF mid-term 
review scheduled for 2017? 

Yes  - if Yes describe them 

 No - if No give reasons why not 

2) Financial Instruments 

This year the ECA noted that the reporting on financial instruments by Member States remains in some cases incomplete or inaccurate. 

A. Question addressed to ITALY & MALTA only:   

2.1 What action has your Member State taken/plans to take to improve the quality of your reporting?  If so, Does it take into account the 
guidance note on reporting and financial instruments the Commission presented to Member States in May 2015? 

Yes  - if Yes describe them 

 No - if No give reasons why not 

B. Question addressed to all other Member States:  

2.2 Has your Member State taken measures to improve the quality of this reporting, in particular on the basis of the Guidance Note on 
reporting on financial instruments (Ref: EGESIF-150015-06/05/2015) presented by the Commission to the Member States in May 2015? 

101

 
 
 
        
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Yes  - if Yes describe them 

 No - if No give reasons why not 

3) Rural Development 

A. Question addressed to Lithuania, Hungary, Czech Republic and United Kingdom: The ECA found eligibility errors resulting from possible 
artificially created conditions to obtain aid contrary to the objectives of an investment measure (cf. ECA Annual Report 2014 -box 7.4) 

3.1 What were the flaws or deficiencies in you internal control system, which in your opinion, permitted the irregularities specified to happen?  

3.2 What remedial measures have been taken or planned? 

B. Questions addressed to United Kingdom, Germany and Italy: The ECA found non-compliance with agri-environmental commitments (cf. 
ECA’s Annual Report 2014 -box 7.5),  

3.3 What were the flaws or deficiencies in you internal control system, which in your opinion, permitted the irregularities specified to happen?  

3.4 What remedial measures have been taken or planned? 

C. Questions addressed to Poland, Bulgaria, Germany, Greece, Spain, France, Italy, the Netherlands and Romania: The ECA found  non-
respect of procurement rules (cf. ECA’s Annual Report 2014 -box 7.6)  

3.5 What were the flaws or deficiencies in you internal control system, which in your opinion, permitted the irregularities specified to happen?  

3.6 What remedial measures have been taken or planned? 

102

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
D. Questions addressed to Ireland, Italy, Portugal, Romania and Sweden: The ECA found  non-respect of procurement rules (cf. ECA’s Annual 
Report 2014 – para 7.53) 

3.7 What were the flaws or deficiencies in you internal control system, which in your opinion, permitted the irregularities specified to happen?  

3.8 What remedial measures have been taken or planned? 

4) Public Procurement 

The ECA has changed its methodology for assessing and quantifying non-compliance with the rules on public procurement. The focus is still on 
serious infringements, where EU institutions as well as national authorities in the Member States do not comply with fundamental principles of 
sound and transparent public procurement procedures. The ECA considers inter alia the following infringements as serious and therefore to be 
sanctioned by a 100% error:  

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

Absence of tendering procedure without justification; 
Artificial split of works/services/supplies in several tenders; 
Use of inappropriate type of tendering procedure; 
Non-compliance with the publication and/or transparency requirements; 
Unlawful/discriminatory technical specifications; 
Lack of documentation of the public procurement procedure. 

Question addressed to all Member States:  

4.1 Apart from the measures for assessing and quantifying non-compliance already required under EU law do you have experience with other 
(nationally prescribed) measures? 

103

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
5) Regional Policy, Employment and Social Affairs 

As in previous years, for regional policy, employment and social affairs ( Chapter 6-paragraph 6.44) , the ECA considers that for a large part of 
the transactions affected by quantifiable errors, sufficient information was available for the Member State authorities to have prevented, 
detected and corrected the errors before certifying the expenditure to the Commission (see also recommendation 2). 

Question addressed to all Member States:  

5.1 Has your Member State established measures to improve management verifications and to enhance the effectiveness of the checks carried 
out before certifying expenditure to the Commission? 

 Yes. If Yes, please provide some examples and describe their effectiveness 
 No. If No, please explain why 

6) State Aid 

In Chapter 6 (for regional policy employment and social affairs) the ECA noted that infringements of State Aid rules were another significant 
source of error.  

Question addressed to all Member States:  

6.1 Does the mandate of the Audit Authority(ies) in your Member State include checks on compliance with state aid rules? 

 Yes  -  

 No – if No, briefly explain why. 

6.2 Has your Member State identified any systemic issues or deficiencies related to state aid rules in the remit of the ESI funds  

104

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 Yes  - if Yes describe the issues/deficiencies 

 No –  

6.3 Does your Member State plan to take/ or has it already taken any preventive measures in this context? 

 Yes  - if Yes, describe the measures 

 No - if No give reasons why not 

7) Common Provisions Regulation and ESF regulation 

In Chapter 6 the Court recommends that the Member States should make better use of the possibilities set out in the Common Provisions 
Regulation and ESF regulation for the 2014-2020 period concerning simplified cost options (recommendation 3).  

Question addressed to all Member States:  

7.1 In the context of ERDF/CF programmes, which actions/plans have been put in place to use simplified cost options more widely in the 2014-
2020 period? 

105

 
 
 
 
             
 
             
 
 
            
 
            
 
 
 
 
 
 
Member States replies to questions in Annex III 

AUSTRIA 

Q 1.1. 

EAFRD: Yes 

EMFF: Yes 

ESF: Yes 

ERDF: Yes 

CF: 0 

Q 1.2. 

The performance indicators have been established for each OP. Additional or complementary indicators specific to the programme 
may also be established. Further additional indicators for the ERDF and ESF in the context of the impact-based approach of the 
federal  budget.  In  that  respect,  setting  objectives  for  the  effective  coordination  and  settlement  of  funds  (ERDF  and  ESF),  e.g. 
completion of the ERDF Reform Agenda by 2015 as a milestone. Programme indicators for the EMFF.  

As  well  as  the  'common  indicators',  the  following  additional  indicators  will  be  used  in  Austria  as  part  of  the  ESF  2014-2020 
programme: 

IP 8i: 'Participants who are in employment, including self-employment, upon completion'; 'Women' 

IP 8iv: 'Companies that received advice leading to an agreed outcome'; 'SMEs that received advice'; 'All companies that received 
advice'; 'Women'; 'Projects for poorly educated women'; 'Women that received support, whose employment situation has improved 
six months after completion of the measures'; 'Women that received support' 

IP 8vi: 'Companies that received advice leading to an agreed programme/plan of measures'; 'All companies that received advice'; 
'SMEs  that  received  advice';  'Employed  persons  (45+)';  'Micro-enterprises  that  received  support,  as  well  as  SMEs,  and  that  are 
carrying out follow-up Active Ageing activities 12 months after the measures have been completed'; 'Projects' 

IP 9i: 'Properly completed participation of non-employed persons who are not in education or training'; 'Projects that have fully 

106

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
completed  the  development  cycle';  'Projects';  'Employed  persons';  'Non-employed  persons  not  in  education  or  training  with  a 
maximum of ISCED 1-2' 

IP 10i: 'Young persons participating in measures to prevent early school leaving and who are in education or training immediately 
upon  completion  of  these  measures  (Federal  Ministry  for  Education  and  Women's  Affairs  (BMBF))';  'Young  persons  whose 
education or training objectives have been set or raised higher, who are ready for vocational training or have completed education 
and/or who are receiving follow-up assistance in entering the labour market'; 'Under-25s participating in BMBF measures'; 'Under-
25s  participating  in  BMASK  (Federal  Ministry  of  Labour,  Social  Affairs  and  Consumer  Protection)  measures';  'Young  persons 
whose mother tongue is not German';  

IP  10iii:  'Persons  participating  in  basic  education  where  a  certificate  is  awarded  upon  completion';  'Projects  aimed  at  further 
developing basic education opportunities'; 'Persons participating in basic education'; 'Persons participating in basic education with 
ISCED 1-2'; 'Participants who will gain/have gained a qualification upon completion'; 'Projects'; 'ISCED 1 and 2' 

Technical assistance: 'ESF homepage'; 'ESF newspapers'; 'Evaluations/studies'; 'Events' 

Performance  framework:  'Allocated  expenditure  which  is  recorded  in  the  accounting  system  of  the  Certifying  Authority  and 
certified  by  them';  'Companies  that  received  advice';  'Non-employed  persons  not  in  education  or  training';  'Participants'; 
'Unemployed and non-employed'. 

Q 1.3. 

Yes;  

In principle yes, but with the restriction that the programmes' performance frameworks have scheduled a performance review in 
2019,  and  intermediate  objectives  (milestones)  will  only  be  set  in  2018.  Performance  indicators  will  be  recorded  at  individual 
project level during monitoring. 

EMFF:  The  indicators  are  recorded  in  the  central  database  in  accordance  with  Austria's  Operational  Programme  –  2014-2020 
European Maritime and Fisheries Fund.  

Data may be provided regarding the indicators set out in the Austrian ESF Programme (status of programme implementation). 

107

 
 
 
Q 2.2. 

Yes;  

Only a single financial instrument is envisaged in the Austrian 'Investing in Growth and Jobs' (IWB) programme. The Managing 
Authority will report in accordance with the Guidance Note. 

No;  

No  financial  instruments  will  be  implemented  in  Austria  with  regard  to  the  EAFRD.  The  quality  of  the  annual  report  on  the 
EAFRD programme was considered very good by the Commission. Not envisaged for the EMFF. Financial instruments are not 
envisaged in Austria for the ESF. 

Q 4.1.  

No;  

Outside the field of EU co-funded projects, no results are known. 

Q 5.1. 

With regard to the Austrian EAFRD programme, public procurement is not widespread. Essentially, it is limited to technical 
assistance. In such cases, great emphasis is placed on complying with the rules on procurement. No additional experience was 
gained in the EAFRD programme. 

Yes;  
Increasing the number of supervisory audits by the Managing Authority (MA) on intermediate bodies. Increasing the number of 
audits by the Certifying Authority (CA) before certification of expenditure. This is effective in that more projects are being 
checked by the MA/CA. Corrections are now also carried out before certification at the European Commission, or projects are not 
included in payment applications. 
Employment OP (OP Beschäftigung): To ensure that the controls are as effective as possible, the intermediate bodies carrying out 
the assessments are constantly monitored by an external service provider of the Managing Authority. In this way, any errors 
discovered, e.g. in settlement processes, can be eliminated at an early stage. 
Phasing out OP: The Managing Authority in Burgenland has been in charge of the Burgenland ERDF and ESF programmes since 
1995. Over this period, the Managing Authority together with the bodies responsible for awarding subsidies have developed a 
system based on the regular exchange of information for the purpose of monitoring the implementation of the programme. 
Meetings are held five times a year, chaired by the Managing Authority with the participation of the bodies responsible for 
awarding subsidies. Agenda for meetings: Status of project implementation and financial implementation (fund commitments), 
presentation of approved projects, passing on of information regarding project accounts, discussion of errors identified with regard 
to eligible costs and expenditure. This system of exchanging information on the running of the programme has fully proved its 
worth. This, along with keeping the administrative organisation as simple as possible, has allowed the Managing Authority to 

108

 
 
 
 
Q 6.1. 

Q 6.2. 

Q 6.3. 

avoid having to introduce specially-tailored measures for effective inspections. 

Yes 

No 

With regard to the ERDF, the aid schemes implemented will also be audited as part of the initial system audits. In order to deal 
with questions on State aid, the ESF Managing Authority has prepared some basic information, as well as a check-list, and made it 
available to the implementing bodies. 

Q 7.1. 

With regard to the ERDF: simplified calculation of personnel costs, flat-rate overhead charges. 

BELGIUM 

Q 1.1. 

EAFRD: Yes 

EMFF: Yes 

ESF: Yes 

ERDF: Yes 

CF: 0 

Q 1.2. 

Pour  le  FEDER  mainstream  en  Wallonie,  en  ce  qui  concerne  le  cadre  de  performance,  la  plupart  des  indicateurs  sont  des 
indicateurs communs. 

Il  y  a  3  indicateurs  repris  dans  le  cadre  de  performance  qui  sont  des  indicateurs  de  réalisation  spécifiques  :  «  Section/atelier 
actualisés » , « Projets intégrés visant la mobilité durable », “Villes/quartiers bénéficiant de plans de revitalisation soutenus » 

EAFRD-VL  (VL  =  Vlaanderen  (Flanders)):  For  priority  3,  an  alternative  indicator  is  used  to  replace  the  common  indicators 
‘Number of holdings participating in risk management schemes (3B)' and 'Number of agricultural holdings supported under quality 
schemes, local markets, ... (3A)'. The alternative indicator is ‘Number of actions supported for investment (3A)' 

109

 
 
 
 
 
The same indicator ‘Number of actions supported for investment' is also adopted for priority 5 (focus area 5d) in addition to the 
common indicators for Priority 5. 

ESF-VL: Indicators as set out in the 14-20 operational programme (OP) 

Q 1.3. 

Yes;  

Pour le FEDER mainstream en Wallonie, même s’ils ne sont obligatoires que pour 2018 et 2023, les indicateurs font l’objet d’une 
quantification annuelle pour les programmes opérationnels FEDER mainstream. 

La plupart des indicateurs de résultat sont collectés auprès de l’Institut wallon de l’évaluation,  de la prospective et de la statistique 
sur  une  base  annuelle.  Il  y  a  néanmoins  quelques  exceptions  (exemple  :  Intensité  de  R&D  de  l'ensemble  de  l'économie)  pour 
lesquels la fréquence de rapportage est tous les 2 ans. En ce qui concerne les indicateurs de réalisation (qu’ils soient communs ou 
spécifiques), ils sont quantifiés de façon annuelle auprès des porteurs de projets.  

No;  

It will still not be possible to answer most evaluation questions in the comprehensive annual report 2017. The evaluation questions 
to be answered in 2017 gauge the impact of the measures on the basis of 'closed projects' (i.e. projects/contracts which were fully 
disbursed). In view of the late launch of the Flemish Rural Development Programme (PDPO III (2015, some measures in 2016) 
and  the  fact  that  many  projects  run  for  several  years,  not  many  projects  will  have  been  disbursed  by  2017.  There  will  be  some 
output  data  (number  of  projects  or  commitments,  aid,...),  but  not  much.  2017  is  therefore  too  early  in  terms  of  measuring  or 
calculating the impact (as requested in the 2017 evaluation questions). 

Q 2.2. 

No;  

La Wallonie n’a pas eu de retour négatif sur les documents fournis. 

Currently, EAFRD-VL has not deployed any financial instruments. 

ESF-VL: Not applicable in the ESF 

ERDF-VL: No comments received regarding the quality of reporting + no financial instruments relating to ERDF-VL 

110

 
 
 
Q 4.1. 

Pour la Belgique, il y a ici lieu de faire référence à la procédure de contrôle administratif et budgétaire, qui a, entre autres, pour but 
de vérifier la légalité et la régularité des propositions liées aux marchés publics. 

ESF-VL: No, we follow the Commission's guidelines of 19 December 2013, 'Guidelines for determining financial corrections to be 
made to expenditure financed by the Union under shared management, for non-compliance with the rules on public procurement’. 

ERDF-VL: No, we follow the Commission's guidelines of 19 December 2013, 'Guidelines for determining financial corrections to 
be made to expenditure financed by the Union under shared management, for non-compliance with the rules on public 
procurement’. 

Q 5.1.  

Yes;  

Pour la période de programmation 2007-2013 (2015), pour les programmes opérationnels FEDER mainstream de la Wallonie, les 
taux d’erreur constatés par l’Autorité d’audit sont les suivants :  

Ceci est le résultat des procédures mises en place, comme : 

- Rappel des différents contrôles aux bénéficiaires ; 

-  Règles d’éligibilité simples ; 

- Utilisation des coûts forfaitaires ; 

- Vade mecum explicitant les procédures à suivre ; 

- Exhaustivité du contrôle de premier niveau ; 

- Séparation claire des fonctions entre les trois autorités (gestion, certification, audit) ; 

- Bonne sensibilisation du personnel de l’Autorité de gestion quant à la réglementation spécifique des Fonds structurels et quant à 
la matière des irrégularités (y compris les cas de fraudes) via la diffusion d’informations ; 

-  Participation  des  administrations  fonctionnelles  au  groupe  de  travail  OLAF  :  évolution  de  la  réglementation  applicable,  en  ce 

111

 
 
 
compris la jurisprudence, des cas concrets d’irrégularités ou de fraudes (cf. point suivant); 

- Participation à des séminaires sur la fraude ;  

- Utilisation du système « ARACHNE », dès qu’il sera opérationnel, comme outil des opérations susceptibles d’être exposées à des 
risques de fraude, de conflits d’intérêts ou à des irrégularités; 

- Attention plus stricte pour les domaines où les risques d’irrégularités/fraude sont plus élevés : 

- Marchés publics : contrôle a priori des procédures, justification des modifications pour un marché en cours. 

- Aides d’Etat : point de contact « Aides d’Etat » au sein de la DGO6 Economie,Emploi et Recherche, séances d’information pour 
le  personnel  concerné,  étude  sur  la  conformité  des  mesures  avec  la  réglementation    européenne et intégration dans le processus 
décisionnel. 

Les faiblesses identifiées dans le rapport annuel de contrôle 2014 FSE invitant à des actions de la part de l’Autorité d’audit, de 
l’Autorité de gestion et du Centre de coordination et de gestion des fonds européennes pour l’enseignement de promotion sociale 
(CCG-EPS), une réunion a eu lieu entre les différentes Autorités à ce sujet le 2 février 2015. Un plan d’action, visant à identifier et 
à estimer l’erreur relevée au sein des différents établissements de l’Enseignement de promotion sociale, a été demandé au CCG par 
l’Autorité d’audit en date du 10 février 2015.  

Par  ailleurs  l’Autorité  de  gestion  a  également  été  sollicitée  à  rédiger  un  plan  d’action  face  aux  différentes  faiblesses  identifiées 
dans l’avis annuel et le rapport annuel de contrôle 2014. Celle-ci y a répondu en date du 12 février 2015. La CAIF renvoie à ces 
documents pour le détail. 

Suite à la transmission par l’Autorité de gestion FEDER d’une note d’orientation relative aux modifications en cours d’exécution 
d’un marché public, aux bénéficiaires et aux administrations fonctionnelles, un audit des modifications apportées au système de 
gestion et de contrôle en termes de vérification de l’exécution des marchés publics sera réalisé par l’Autorité d’audit pour la fin de 
l’année 2015.  Les conclusions de ces travaux figureront dans le rapport annuel de contrôle FEDER qui sera transmis pour le 31 
décembre 2015 à la Commission. 

Il y a en outre lieu de mentionner les efforts que le SPP IS a engagés depuis le mois de juillet dernier pour améliorer le contrôle du 
FSE  :  des  mesures  correctrices  ont  en  effet  été  entreprises  au  niveau  de  la  programmation  fédérale  FSE  pour  améliorer  les 
contrôles  de  gestion  et  l’efficacité  des  contrôles  de  gestion  et  plus  particulièrement  sur  les  projets  de  l’axe  2  pour  lesquels  des 

112

 
 
 
déficiences avaient été constatées . 

Une nouvelle méthodologie de contrôle ( avec une nouvelle check list et visite systématique sur place  ) a été élaborée . 

Les  projets de l’axe 2 ont été recontrôlés à 100 % à l’aide cette nouvelle méthodologie de contrôle . 

Ces différentes mesures nous ont permis d’améliorer la qualité des contrôles au niveau de l’autorité de gestion et la piste d’audit . 

La description précise de ces améliorations des mesures de contrôles sera communiquée à la CCE 

ESF-VL: Using pro-active coaching activities for the final beneficiaries. 

ERDF-VL: Enhanced front-line control through the introduction of more detailed control by two pairs of eyes. 

Q 6.1. 

Yes;  

Les Autorités d’audit sont censées examiner l’ensemble des dimensions qui déterminent la légalité et la régularité des dépenses 
pour lesquelles un cofinancement européen est sollicité.  

Cela étant, la question ne se pose pas tant dans le cadre du FSE que dans le cadre du FEDER. Elle peut se poser également dans le 
cadre du Fonds pour les frontières extérieures (EBF) mais il semble que cela sort du périmètre du questionnaire. 

Q 6.2. 

No 

Q 6.3. 

Yes;  

Tout projet cofinancé par le FEDER mainstream en Wallonie fait systématiquement l’objet d’un examen ex ante sur le respect de 
cette législation. 

En ce qui concerne le FEDER, une expertise portant sur la problématique de la compatibilité des actions cofinancées dans le cadre 
de la nouvelle programmation par rapport aux aides d’Etats a été confiée par le Département de Coordination des Fonds Structurels 
(DCFS) au cabinet GIDE, spécialisé en la matière.   

Par ailleurs, le gouvernement Wallon vient de marquer son accord concernant la constitution d’un point de contact unique « aides 
d’états » au sein de la DGO6 dans le département de la Compétitivité et de l’Innovation. 

113

 
 
 
On  25  September  2015,  the  Flemish  Government  adopted  a  Decision  on  support  to  schemes  in  the  context  of  the  European 
Regional Development Fund and the European Social Fund. This decision ensures that the managing authority may only approve 
applications within the maximum thresholds of EU State aid rules. This decision was notified to the European Commission and is 
registered under reference numbers SA. 43190 (ERDF/Interreg) and SA. 43191 (ESF). The managing authority may decide either 
that there is no State aid or that the State aid may be compatible with the provisions of the General Block Exemption Regulation 
(Commission Regulation No 651/2014 of 17 June 2014 declaring certain categories of aid under Articles 107 and 108 of the Treaty 
compatible with the internal market, EU Official Journal of 26 June 2014, L 187/1). A justification is also possible on the basis of 
the de minimis Regulation or the SGEI rules. 

ESF-VL: Assessment of State aid, guidelines from the calls to promoters, State aid the training for managing authority staff, and 
structural  agreements  in  the  context  of  the  flow  of  information  from  the  Commission  via  the  competent  authorities  to  final-
beneficiary level. 

ERDF-VL: under implementation during the 2014-2020 programming period; thorough and documented assessment of State aid, 
practical guidelines for project promoters, State aid training for managing authority staff. 

Q 7.1. 

Utilisation généralisée des barèmes standards de coûts horaires pour les dépenses de personnel et application d’un taux forfaitaire 
de 15% pour les coûts indirects. 

BULGARIA 

Q 1.1. 

EAFRD: 0 

EMFF: 0 

ESF: Yes 

ERDF: 0 

CF: 0 

114

 
 
 
 
 
Q 1.2. 

The  Managing  Authority  of  the  Operational  Programme  ‘Human  Resource  Development’  will  report  progress  based  on  the 
specific indicators stipulated in the OP ‘Human Resource Development’. 

Q 1.3. 

Yes;  

MLSP: Information about fulfilling general and specific indicators will be presented for the schemes which started in 2015. 

Q 2.2. 

Yes;  

OPRD: The Managing Authority of the Operational Programme ‘Regional Development’ 2007-2013 (OPRD Managing Authority) 
receives detailed information on a regular basis about the execution of the JESSICA financial instrument by the European 
Investment Bank in its capacity as a JESSICA Holding Fund for Bulgaria, on the basis of an annual progress report and a final 
expenditure report for the relevant year, as well as a half-yearly progress report. As part of the reports just mentioned, the OPRD 
Managing Authority receives qualitative and quantitative information for the execution carried out by the JESSICA Holding Fund 
and the Urban Development Funds, necessary to meet the obligation of the OPRD Managing Authority to submit a report on the 
execution of the financial instrument to the European Commission and ‘National Fund’ agency in the Bulgarian Ministry of 
Finances. In addition, the OPRD Managing Authority receives information on a monthly basis from the European Investment Bank 
regarding the size of the absorption rates for the Holding Fund and Urban Development Funds, as well as the amount for the 
payments made to urban development projects financed by resources from the Operational Programme ‘Regional Development’ 
2007–2013. Last but not least, the OPRD Managing Authority holds monthly progress meetings with the Urban Development 
Funds during which additional information is provided about the progress of urban development projects. 

As of 2013, the OPRD Managing Authority has adopted an annual reporting approach on the execution of the financial instruments 
using the SFC system, based on the model of the Guidance Notes. Furthermore, the OPRD Managing Authority has submitted to 
the Certifying Authority two intermediate reports for certification, which contain information about verifiable amounts when 
implementing financial engineering instruments. 

In regard of the above, although the Guidance Notes on reporting for financial instruments EGESIF-150015-06/05/2015 relate to 
the 2014–2020 programming period, a section entitled ‘Financial Engineering’ has been included as part of the Manual of 
procedures of the OPRD Managing Authority for the period 2007–2013, providing a detailed description of the reporting 
procedures, in full compliance with the applicable national and European legislation in the area of financial instrument reporting.   

115

 
 
 
Q 3.5. 

МZH: Frequent changes to the statutory regulations in the area of public procurement, The beneficiaries do not have employees 
who are qualified in the area of public procurement relating to EU programme expenditure. 

Audit of EU Funds Executive Agency (IA OSES): Firstly, we note that the conclusions in the report from the European Court of 
Auditors, which form the basis for this question, have been made as a result of checks carried out on beneficiaries for projects 
being implemented using resources from the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD). The Audit of EU 
Funds Executive Agency does not perform the functions of an audit authority for the Rural Development Programme. The 
shortcomings highlighted by us in 2014 in terms of applying the public procurement regulations relate to the systems for managing 
and controlling the resources from the European Regional Development Fund, the European Social Fund, the European Fisheries 
Fund and the Cohesion Fund, i.e. for the eight operational programmes and three cross-border cooperation programmes.  

During our audit commitments in 2014, a total of 464 public procurement procedures were verified, where 218 of them were found 
to be non-compliant with the applicable legislation and financial corrections proposed. These incidences of non-compliance have 
not been noted by the Managing Authorities during verification of the expenditure and the errors have not been corrected by the 
certified expenditure. After completing the checks, we analysed the reasons for the shortcomings permitted by the Managing 
Authorities during verification of the public procurement expenditure certified in 2013, and we established the following: 

- one of the reasons for the shortcomings we identified in the work of the Managing Authorities is that the expenditure audited by 
us has been verified prior to the coming into force of the new Commission Guidelines for determining financial corrections to be 
made to expenditure financed by the Union under shared management, for non-compliance with the rules on public procurement, 
adopted with Commission Decision of 19 December 2013. In keeping with the Commission’s requirements, the Audit Authority 
applies the above-mentioned guidelines to the audits for the operations involving the expenditure certified in 2013, of which the 
Managing and Certifying Authorities have been informed by means of a letter dated 24 January 2014. The checklists used by the 
Managing Authorities during the verification process, while including checks at every stage of the public procurement process, do 
not correspond to the new types of irregularities described in the new Commission Guidelines and their financial impact, as they 
had not been applicable in 2012/2013 when this expenditure was verified. The Commission Guidelines adopted in December 2013 
have been incorporated into national legislation with Council of Ministers Decree 162 of 17 June 2014, which came into force on 
24 June 2014. 

- an important reason for allowing the shortcomings when verifying the expenditure for the public procurement procedures is the 
lack of expertise of the employees involved in carrying out the checks and applying a uniform approach to verifying the public 
procurement procedures by all the authorities in the system for managing and controlling EU resources. 

116

 
 
 
Q 3.6. 

IA OSES: As a result of the discrepancies identified in applying the public procurement procedure regulations, we have drawn up 
recommendations  for  updating  the  Managing  Authorities’  Manuals  of  procedures  and  the  checklists  used  by  them  in  line  with 
Commission  guidelines  and  the  approach  used  by  the  Audit  Authority  for  verifying  the  public  procurement  procedures.  The 
implementation  of  these recommendations is in the process of being examined as part of the system audits being carried out in 
2015, which have not been completed at the present juncture. 

In connection with suspending the payments for the OP ‘Environment’ and the OP ‘Regional Development’ due to the numerous 
deviations from the public procurement procedure regulations, at the request of the Directorate-General for Regional and Urban 
Policy in 2014, we carried out four special system audits. As a result of these recommendations, the Managing Authority for the 
OP ‘Regional Development’ verified for a second time the certified expenditure of public procurement contracts for Axis 1 and 3 
of  the  programme,  from  the  start  of  the  programming  period  until  30  June  2014.  All  errors  with  a  financial  impact,  identified 
during  the  repeat  audits  as  having  a  total  value  of  BGN  88  794  154.69,  have  been  posted  in  the  accounts  by  the  Managing 
Authority and reflected accordingly in the Certifying Authority’s accounting system. 

While  implementing  these  recommendation,  the  Managing  Authority  for  OP  ‘Environment’  also  verified  for  a  second  time  the 
certified  expenditure  for  239  public  procurement  contracts  for  which  expenditure  was  certified  for  the  2010–2013  period.  The 
Managing Authority advised that the financial impact of the individual and flat-rate financial corrections for the 239 contracts from 
the population used to carry out a repeat verification of the expenditure certified for 2013 came to a total of BGN 41 964 832.99 
(BGN 25 947 931.62 for individual financial corrections and BGN 16 016 901.37 for a flat-rate financial correction). 

In  2014  auditors  presented  the  practice  used  by  the  Audit  Authority  for  verifying  the  public  procurement  of  seven  specialised 
training  courses,  which  were  attended  by  a  total  of  200  employees  from  the  Managing  Authorities  and  the  beneficiaries  of  the 
operational  programmes.  Our  practice  of  presenting  an  audit  approach  when  verifying  public  procurement  procedures  will  also 
continue  in  2015.  So  far,  auditors  from  the  Audit  Authority  have  delivered  training  on  three  specialised  courses  which  were 
attended by 44 people - beneficiaries and employees of the Certifying and Managing Authorities. 

The  Audit  Authority  conducts  an  analysis  every  year  of  the  non-compliances  identified  with  the  procedures  which  have  been 
verified for selecting a contractor. The analysis contains information about the irregularities identified, grouped according to the 
stages  in  the  public  procurement  procedure,  in  particular:  irregularities  relating  to  preparing  and  initiating  public  procurement 
procedures,  irregularities  relating  to  the  evaluation  of  the  bids  received,  and  irregularities  relating  to  the  execution  of  public 

117

 
 
 
procurement  contracts.  The  analysis  is  submitted  to  all  the  Managing  Authorities  for  the  operational  programmes  and  to  key 
beneficiaries. Furthermore, it is published on the agency’s website. 

With the aim of restricting the errors with a financial impact in the area of public procurement, the current checklists used by the 
Audit  Authority  for  verifying  public  procurement  procedures  have  been  submitted  to  other  national  control  agencies.  The 
checklists  for  verifying  the  public  procurement  procedures,  drawn  up  by  the  Audit  Authority,  have  been  presented,  along  with 
letter No 05.15.207/08.04.2015 from the Deputy Prime Minister in charge of EU funds and Economic Policy, to all the Managing 
Authorities  for  implementation.  The  aim  of  using  these  checklists  is  to  make  the  checks  more  in-depth  and  standardise  the 
methodology used by all the Managing Authorities to verify the procurement procedures. 

Reply from the RDP Managing Authority: For the Rural Development Programme – Drafting of guidelines for RDP beneficiaries 
for  implementing  the  Public  Procurement  Act  (ZOP);  Informing  potential  beneficiaries  about  the  Guidelines;  Devising 
standardised procurement criteria for forms and types of investment activities for implementing the procedures under ZOP, which 
is to be added to the Guidelines. 

Reply from DFZ-PA: 

Q 4.1. 

Q 5.1. 

Guidelines have been drawn up to help beneficiaries when planning and carrying out public procurement procedures, with the aim 
of preventing errors. The ex post procedure for evaluating the criteria under ZOP prior to payment was adopted on 12 September 
2014 . 

No response 

Yes;  
MLSP: Following the audit carried out in 2010 on the systems for the OP ‘Human Resource Development’ by the Commission and 
the subsequent notes and recommendation sent forward, the checklists used for verifying management and on-the-spot visits were 
reviewed. The Managing Authority reviewed the lists for the on-the-spot checks, including checks carried out by the MA/IB on the 
extent to which the targets were achieved and the relation between planned activities and results for a particular activity; 
verification of the supporting documents available, certifying compliance with the horizontal principles; the details itemised for the 
tender procedures carried out by the beneficiaries; compliance with the requirement for double-entry accounting of the operations 
in the online system by the beneficiary, where verified and non-verified expenditure is shown. 
In 2013 the MA introduced a consolidated manual for managing and implementing the Operational Programme ‘Human Resource 

118

 
 
 
Development’ 2007–2013, with the separate manuals for the intermediate levels ceasing to be used. 
Simplified expenditure was introduced for the OP ‘Human Resources Development’ for implementing a uniform expenditure 
standard for activities defined by the state as having a ‘social security’ function, in order to report the expenditure for schemes 
involved in granting financial support: ‘LIFE IN THE COMMUNITY’ and ‘LET’S NOT ABANDON ANY CHILD’ – 
Component 2, with which the effectiveness of the checks carried out was improved and the main focus was the implementation of 
the activities. In this regard, the following has been achieved: 
- Easier communication with the beneficiary and a simplified control mechanism; 
- Increase in the time spent monitoring the activities, and not the expenditure, i.e. focusing on the quality of the services provided; 
- Streamlining the work involved in checking an intermediate/final report and human resources; 
- Achieving the best possible targets set and results, as well as quality of the services provided. 
NF: The requirements of Article 61 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1083/2006 and of Article 20 of Commission Regulation (EC) 
No 1828/2006 were complied with when the expenditure for the operational programmes was certified by the Certifying Authority 
(CA) in 2014. The CA carried out checks and analysed all the information collected and available with the aim of confirming the 
regularity and eligibility of the expenditure disbursed when carrying out projects, in accordance with national and European 
statutory regulations. As a result of the checks carried out, the CA noted shortcomings mainly in the implementation of control 
procedures by the Managing Authorities and/or Intermediate levels in the area of public procurement/selecting a contractor, sound 
management of accounts receivable and compliance with the principles of good financial management. 
The following measures have been taken in order to improve the control environment: 
- Based on a risk assessment and the considerable number of shortcomings identified during the on-the-spot checks of the 
procedures for selecting a contractor, in the latest version of the CA’s Manual of procedures (updated in June 2014), checks of this 
kind were made the object of a separate procedure. In a number of cases, the CA delays certification of specific expenditure for 
projects until appropriate corrective action has been taken by the MA and/or a financial correction has been made where 
applicable. 
-  With the aim of establishing the presence of a recurring and horizontal aspect to shortcomings identified during the on-the-spot-
checks carried out by the CA, a ‘Database for shortcomings identified during on-the-spot checks’ is maintained for procedures 
used to select a contractor and for regular on-the-spot checks prior to certification. In the case of the MA failing to take appropriate 
action and if an identical shortcoming is identified during a subsequent check and with other projects, the CA advises the MA of a 
temporary suspension of the certification of expenditure for the relevant operation/priority axis/operational programme until 
appropriate corrective action has been taken by the MA and a financial correction has been made where applicable. For example, 
in 2014 certification was suspended for three schemes of financial support under Operational Programme ‘Development of the 
Competitiveness of the Bulgarian Economy 2007–2013’, due to deficiencies and shortcomings identified when applying the 
procedures for selecting project proposals, which made it necessary for the MA to take corrective action. 
-  In connection with the Practical guide for managers, devised by an expert group of Member States, coordinated by the European 
Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF), the CA drew up a sample Declaration of absence of conflicts of interest, in keeping with Article 57 of 

119

 
 
 
Regulation (EC) No 966/2012. The declaration was submitted to the MAs with the request for it to be implemented by all 
employees participating in the preparation, implementation and management of the relevant operational programme, as well as by 
the members of the units/teams involved in managing projects financed by EU funds. Furthermore, taking into account the need to 
boost the measures for tackling fraud, corruption and conflicts of interest, the CA included ‘red flags’ in the checklists for on-the-
spot checks, indicating the occurrence of fraud. If any or all of these circumstances are established, the CA is to advise the MAs 
and the Directorate ‘Coordination of the fight against infringements affecting the financial interests of the EU (AFCOS)’ within 
the Bulgarian Ministry of Interior. The CA also requires the MAs to take appropriate measures to include ‘red flags’ in the 
checklists of their manuals of procedures. 
-    The  CA  provides  support  with  the  methodology  to  MAs  and  IBs  for  both  the  2007–2013  and  2014–2020  periods,  arranges 
working  meetings  and  training  courses  for  all  the  parties  involved  in  managing  EU  funds  (MAs,  IBs,  health  agencies,  central 
coordination units, AFCOS and specific beneficiaries). 

Q 6.1. 

Yes;  

IA  OSES:  During  the  operations  audit  in  2015,  the  check  on  compliance  with  the  state  aid  scheme  was  carried  out  using  an 
independent, itemised checklist, unlike in previous years, when the questions about state aid were part of the general checklist.    

Q 6.2. 

Yes;  

IA  OSES:  During  the  operations  audit  in  2014,  the  Audit  Authority  identified  the  following  for  the  Operational  Programme 
‘Development of the Competitiveness of the Bulgarian Economy 2007–2013’:    

The project files for 15 projects in our sample of large enterprise beneficiaries do not contain internal documents with a plausible 
analysis confirming the presence of the criteria supporting an incentive effect in keeping with Article 8(3) of Regulation (EC) No 
800/2008 (General block exemption Regulation). The programme’s Managing Authority is responsible for identifying the presence 
of  the  criteria  supporting  an  incentive  effect  in  keeping  with  the  requirements  of  Regulation  (EC)  No  800/2008  and  with 
Commission notice Comp/H4/CS/dg-D* 2011/097439 and ought to have requested that beneficiaries present an internal document 
with this kind of content.  

During  the  audit,  we  requested  the  latter  documents  from  the  above-mentioned  15  enterprises  in  our  sample.  As  a  result  of  the 
check carried out, we established that the data from the project proposals and the additional data supplied from documents provide 
a reliable analysis in keeping with the requirements of Regulation (EC) No 800/2008 and Comp/H4/CS/dg-D*2011/097439.   

120

 
 
 
We  advised  the  Managing  Authority  to  review  the  files  of  all  the  remaining  large  enterprises  receiving  support  and  to  take 
measures to ensure that they contain internal documents with a plausible analysis confirming the presence of the criteria supporting 
an incentive effect in keeping with Article 8(3) of Regulation (EC) No 800/2008. In the case that the Managing Authority fails to 
collect  the  information  specified  above  and  provide  confirmation  for  the  relevant  large  enterprise,  appropriate  corrective  action 
should be taken. 

In 2014, during an audit of the management systems set up under the initiative ‘Joint European Resources for Micro to Medium 
Enterprises’ (JEREMIE), when verifying projects financed by the instrument ‘Loan Portfolio Guarantee Fund’, we established that 
the end recipient of the aid had not been informed as to the amount of the State aid provided to them. This fact fails to comply with 
the requirements of Article 3 of Regulation (EC) No 1998/2006 and item 15.5 (‘State aid’) in the General terms and conditions of 
the  agreement  between  the  financial  intermediary  and  JEREMIE  Bulgaria  EAD  (created  specially  to  implement  the  JEREMIE 
holding fund initiative).  

The  Audit  Authority  has  advised  the  financial  intermediaries  in  any  future  JEREMIE  contracts  to  fulfil  their  obligation  duly 
pursuant  to  Article  3  of  Regulation  (EC)  No  1998/2006  and  to  inform  the  end  recipients  as  to  the  real  amount  of  the  State  aid 
received. 

The Audit Authority has advised the holding fund JEREMIE Bulgaria EAD to carry out and monitor the implementation of the 
recommendation by the financial intermediaries. 

Q 6.3. 

MLSP: Not applicable to the OP ‘Human Resource Development’ because no errors have been noted. 

Q 7.1. 

MLSP: Not applicable to the OP ‘Human Resource Development’. 

CROATIA 

Q 1.1. 

EAFRD: Yes 

EMFF: Yes 

121

 
 
 
 
 
ESF: Yes 

ERDF: Yes 

CF: Yes 

Q 1.2. 

With  the  common  indicators  used  by  the  operational  programmes  for  all  five  funds,  operational  programs  contain  specific 
indicators  of  performance,  direct  outputs  and  context  that  will  also  measure  and  submit  information  on  the  realisation  of  all 
operational programmes financed by ESI funds. 

Q 1.3. 

Yes;  

Data on the total contracted, paid and certified funds, information on all direct performance indicators (common and specific) of all 
completed projects of all award procedures until 2017. No significant changes in the value of performance indicators are expected 
due  to  the  fact  that  their  values  change  significantly  only  in  the  later  stages  of  implementation.  In  addition,  the  results  of 
evaluations can be used, which should contribute to improved and possible simplification of management and control systems. 

Q 2.2. 

Yes;  

Given that the Republic of Croatia will use the financial instruments for the first time in the period 2014-2020, the procedural 
framework is fully compliant with the applicable provisions of the EU Regulations as well as with all applicable guidelines of the 
Commission governing the monitoring and reporting of financial instruments. 

Q 4.1. 

IT tools and systems are available to ensure access to information on opportunities for public contracts or concessions. As of  1 
January  2012,  publication  of  tender  notices  and  tender  documents  is  mandatory.  As  of  1  January  2014,  State  office  for  Central 
Public Procurement has to allow e-submission, while a deadline for all clients to use e-submission is 1 July 2016. Free of charge 
unique platform for tenders (Electronic Public Procurement Classifieds) is available at the Official Gazette for economic operators. 
Indicators and tools are used to track performance of PP: based on data on contract award notices from EPPC, statistical report is 
prepared for the previous year. The report includes data on number of contracts, final financial values, type of procedures, subject-
matter of procurement, etc. State Commission submits their yearly report to the Croatian Parliament. 

Contracting authorities have an obligation to publish their public procurement plans (subject matter of procurement the estimated 
value of which is equal to or higher than HRK 20.000) and contract registers on their websites and send links to the Ministry of 

122

 
 
 
Economy  which  publishes  them  on  Public  Procurement  Portal  –  www.javnanabava.hr.  Contracting  authority/entity  in  open 
procedure (cca 89% of all conducted procedures on a yearly basis) must publish tender documents electronically in EPPC.  

PP Act prescribes that in open and restricted procedure, the contracting authority shall open the tenders in a public bid opening. In 
other  procedures,  save  negotiated  procedures  without  prior  publication,  the  final  tenders  shall  be  open  in  a  public  opening  of 
tenders. In  the procedure for  the award of public service contracts referred to in Annex II B, the contracting authority shall not 
have the obligation to publicly open tenders. The public opening of tenders may be witnessed by authorised representatives of the 
tenderers and other persons. 

After  the  receipt  of  the  award  or  the  cancellation  decision  and  until  the  expiry  of  the  deadline  for  an  appeal,  the  contracting 
authority must, upon a tenderer's request, provide access to any tender, including subsequently submitted documents, as well as 
clarifications and supplements, with the exception of information the tenderers designated as confidential.  

In  all  public  procurement  procedures  conducted  by  the  State  Office  for  Central  Public  Procurement  (central  purchasing  office) 
from 1 January 2014, submission of tenders is available to economic operators electronically via EPPC.  

Also, information and opinions (as answers to the questions posed by the economic entities and contractors) are publicly available 
on the Ministry of Economy website, while decisions are also available on the website of the State Commission.  

Remedies in PP are regulated by Section IV of the PP Act (Articles 138-176 of PP Act). Appellate body is State Commission for 
Supervision over Public Procurement Procedure. Appeals on tender documents and award decisions stop the PP procedure done by 
the contracting authority/entity till the State Commission ruling.  

According  to  the  Act  on  the  State  Commission  for  Supervision  over  Public  Procurement  Procedure,  the  State  Commission  is 
obliged to publish on its web sites (www.dkom.hr) the information about the most common reasons for lodging the appeals and the 
most common irregularities established in the appeal procedures.  

The most common reasons for lodging the appeal:  

• non-conformity of the tender documentation in relation to the Public Procurement Act; 

• selection of an invalid offer; 

• unfounded exclusion of the appellant offer from the review procedure of examination and evaluation; 

123

 
 
 
• challenge the basis for a decision on annulment; 

• omissions (irregularities) related to the opening of bids.  

An administrative dispute against a decision of the State Commission may be initiated before a competent administrative court. 
These procedures are urgent (Article 173 and 174 of PP Act). Any person who has suffered damage due to violations of PP Act 
shall have the possibility of claiming damages before the competent court under the general indemnification regulations. 

Also, the Ministry of the Economy controls the implementation of PP Act (ex post control, not stopping the PP procedure). Any 
legal or natural person (even anonymously) or state body can initiate the procedure. If irregularities are found, the Ministry of the 
Economy can open a misdemeanour procedure before the competent misdemeanour court. The fines are from HRK 50,000.00 to 
HRK 1,000,000.00 for a contracting authority/entity and from HRK 10,000.00 to HRK 100,000.00. for their responsible person. 
The misdemeanour procedure is initiated if a contracting authority/entity for example: 

• procures supplies, works or services without a public procurement procedure laid down in the PP Act, save in cases permitted by 
the Act, 

• awards a public procurement contract contrary to the provision of Article 13 of the PP Act (conflict of interest), 

• subdivides the value of works or certain quantity of supplies and/or services with the intention of preventing its coming within 
the scope of the PP Act or the rules applicable according 

• to the estimated value of procurement, 

•  in  the  preparation  and  implementation  of  the  public  procurement  procedure  at  least  one  authorised  representative  of  the 
contracting authority/entity does not hold a valid certificate in the field of public procurement, 

• they use the negotiated public procurement procedure without prior publication contrary to the provisions of Articles 26, 27, 28 
or 117 of the PP Act, 

• they award a public procurement contract or conclude a framework agreement with the tenderer who must have been excluded 
from the public procurement procedure or whose tender they were obligated to reject based on the results of the examination and 
evaluation of tenders, 

• they fail to send for publication the contract award notice or the notice on the results of the design contest (Article 60 and Article 

124

 
 
 
125), 

• they conclude a public procurement contract or a framework agreement which is not in line with the conditions stipulated in the 
tender documents and the chosen tender (Article 

• 105 paragraph 1), 

• they act contrary to or do not comply with a decision issued by the State Commission for the Supervision of Public Procurement 
Procedure. 

According to the PP Act every contracting authority/entity is obliged to control the implementation of their public contracts. Also, 
State Audit Office as an independent body, performs audits of government revenues  and expenditures, financial statements and 
financial transactions of government sector units and local units, legal entities financed from the budget, legal entities founded by 
the  Republic  of  Croatia  or  local  units,  companies  and  other  legal  entities,  in  which  the  Republic  of  Croatia  i.e.  local  units  hold 
majority  stakes.  The  office  also  has  jurisdiction  to  audit  the  European  Union  funds  and  other  international  organizations  or 
institutions for funding public needs. The audit includes examination of documents and statements, internal control and internal 
audit systems, accounting and financial procedures, and other records in order to establish whether the financial statements show a 
true financial standing and results of financial activities in accordance with the accepted accounting principles and standards. 

Education system including licensing of persons involved in PP procedures is in place. Public procurement training in the Republic 
of Croatia was established in 2009  with  Regulation  on  the  forms,  methods  and requirements for training in the PP (OG 43/09). 
Pursuant to the Regulations on training in the field of  public procurement (OG 6/12), training programmes in this field may be 
carried  out  by  companies  authorized  by  the  Ministry  of  Economy  and  by  the  Ministry  of  Public  Administration  as  a  central 
government  body  responsible  for  civil  service  affairs.  The  list  of  the  authorized  companies  is  maintained  by  the  Ministry  of 
Economy  and  is  published  on  this  portal  http://www.javnanabava.hr/.  The  register  is  regularly  updated  in  line  with  new 
authorizations issued. Basically, training in the field of public procurement is carried out by economic operators (companies) who 
are 
is  available  online: 
http://www.javnanabava.hr/default.aspx?id=3724. Training is provided by trainers in the field of public procurement. The list of 
providers is available online: http://www.javnanabava.hr/default.aspx?id=3723.  

registered  holders  of  a  public  procurement 

training  program.  The 

list  of  providers 

Basic training program is 50 school hours long. After that a person must pass an exam. Exams are organized by the Ministry of 
Economy after which the certificate is issued to persons who have successfully passed the exam. The first certificates were issued 
in 2009. A register of issued certificates in the field of PP is available online: http://www.javnanabava.hr/default.aspx?id=3762. 
From 2012, the PP certificates are valid for 3 years. To renew the certificate, a person must obtain further education in amount of 

125

 
 
 
hours 

school 

32 
online: 
years. 
http://www.javnanabava.hr/default.aspx?id=3763.  In Croatia there are cca 4300 certified persons and 190 trainers in the field of 
public procurement. 

providers 

available 

period 

The 

that 

list 

of 

of 

in 

is 

3 

Q 5.1. 

Yes;  

Joint national rules for the 2007-2013 have been improved on the basis of experience in implementing the audit recommendations. 
With regard to implementation continuing to the end of 2016, a realistic assessment of the effectiveness is expected in 2016. In 
parallel, joint national rules for the period 2014-2020 including the guidelines and recommendations of the European Commission 
have been prepared. 

Q 6.1. 

Q 6.2. 

Yes 

No 

Q 6.3. 

No;  

The Ministry of Finance is responsible for the implementation of state aid policy and for providing an opinion on compliance of 
proposals / programme aid, this specifically means without the opinion of the MoF it is not possible to allocate state aid exempted 
from  notification  to  the  European  Commission.  In  addition,  the  Ministry  of  Finance  also  participates  in  strengthening  the 
awareness of EU rules on state aid of so called ex ante conditionality. Thus ensuring the compliance of the programme with the 
state aid rules. 

Q 7.1. 

Managing Authority of the operational programme "Competitiveness and Cohesion" has prepared Instructions on the application 
of simplified funding opportunities (SFO), which easily explains what simplified funding opportunities are available and the way 
in which they can be applied to the relevant specific objectives of the programme. The instructions do not exclude any possibility 
of  SFO,  but  it  rather,  given  the  breadth  of  the  programme  (9  of  11  thematic  objectives),  explains  how  to  draft  the  necessary 
documentation for each SFO and how the Managing Authority will review and approve the chosen methodology and SFO.  

In 2016 the use of SFOs is expected as part of the award procedures that are planned for the next period. This particularly applies 
to the categories of SFOs that do not require additional methodologies and the application of which comes directly from the EU 
Regulation.  In  later  stages,  due  to  the  fact  that  the  vast  majority  of  SFOs  require  historical  data  series,  it  is  expected  that  the 
authorities, on the basis of experience and data collected in the first years of implementation, will begin to use other SFOs. Since 
the  authorities  in  management  and  control,  as  well  as  the  audit  authority,  have  limited  experience  in  the  implementation  and 

126

 
 
 
auditing of SFOs, further work will be done to boost capacity. 

CYPRUS 

Q 1.1. 

EAFRD: Yes 

EMFF: Yes 

ESF: Yes 

ERDF: Yes 

CF: Yes 

Q 1.2. 

Operational Programme Competitiveness and Sustainable Development (ERDF & CF): 

Regarding  the  performance  framework,  both  common  and  other  output  indicators  have  been  used,  one  financial  indicator 
concerning  ‘certified  public  expenditure’  and  one  ‘key  implementation  phase’  indicator  concerning  the  ‘number  of  included 
projects’. The performance framework output indicators which are not common are the following: 

• Public bodies/Services granted aid for the development of digital e-governance applications  

• Number of breakwaters constructed for the protection of coastal areas 

• Additional recovery capacity for biodegradable materials 

• Extension of the quay of the port infrastructure 

• Length of the bicycle path network under construction 

• Open areas created or restored to improve urban mobility 

127

 
 
 
 
 
• Number of infrastructure of historical or cultural interest subject to improvements 

Operational Programme Sea (EMFF):  

No additional or complementary performance indicators other than those determined by the EMFF Regulation will be used for the 
programme. 

Q 1.3. 

Yes;  

The  collection  and  storage  of  data  is  related  to  the  operation  of  the  integrated  information  system,  the  preparation  of  the 
management  and  control  system  and,  consequently,  the  timely  commencement  of  the  implementation  of  the  individual 
interventions included in the framework of the operational programmes. Given the above and the fact that the indicators will be 
correlated  with  projects  planned  to  be  included  directly,  the  progress  of  the  indicators  will  be  monitored  through  the  integrated 
information system. 

Q 2.2. 

Yes;  

Planning  capacity  improvement  seminars  for  the  stakeholders,  purchasing  services  from  independent  experts  to  assist/support, 
monitoring and evaluation, improving the existing software for data collection 

The  new  template  was  given  to  the  EIF,  which  acts  as  a  fund  manager  for  the  financial  instruments  implemented  in  Cyprus  to 
correctly complete the information included in the annual report and the final report on the implementation of the programmes. 

Q 4.1. 

At a national level, the same EU guidelines are implemented in cases of non-compliance with the rules on public procurement. 

Q 5.1. 

Yes;  

Following  a  statistical  analysis  of  the  errors  and  irregularities  identified  in  the  verifications,  weaknesses  were  identified  in  the 
technical verifications during the implementation of the contracts, mainly in construction contracts executed by local authorities 
and  software  development  contracts  executed  by  public  universities.  The  contracting  authorities  are  therefore  referred  to  the 
Central Committee for Variations and Claims for examination of the amendment requests for such contracts, provision of guidance 

128

 
 
 
and opinion, as well as for mediation with the contractors involved for the resolution of disputes. 

Q 6.1. 

Q 6.2. 

Yes 

No 

Q 6.3. 

Yes;  

Scheme management bodies, which demonstrated significant weaknesses in managing aid schemes for the FP 2007-2013 and were 
either  removed  as  management  bodies  for  the  new  FP  2014-2020  or  are  currently  under  close  monitoring  and  assessment  to 
address the weaknesses and ensure correct staffing, training and organisation prior to the approval of the aid schemes of the FP 
2014-2020. 

Q 7.1. 

A methodology is currently being developed regarding the use of simplified cost options for the research and innovation projects to 
be  implemented  during  the  FP  2014-2020  from  the  Research  Promotion  Foundation  and  the  Ministry  of  Energy,  Commerce, 
Industry and Tourism. 

CZECH REPUBLIC 

Q 1.1. 

EAFRD: Yes 

EMFF: Yes 

ESF: Yes 

ERDF: Yes 

CF: Yes 

Q 1.2. 

National Coordinating Body: 

129

 
 
 
 
 
The  Czech  Republic  has  drawn  up  a  National  Indicator  Code  List,  containing  a  complete  list  of  indicators  used  by  operational 
programmes.  This  list  contains  both  common  and  specific  indicators  (created  at  national  level).  Specific  indicators  are  used  to 
monitor the pursuit of specific national objectives beyond the scope of the common indicators defined by the Commission.   

EAFRD (Ministry of Agriculture): 

In the programming document, the description of each operation sets out its objectives and the attendant indicators. In those cases 
where an objective was found not to have a direct link to a common indicator under EU legislation, specific indicators were added 
(e.g. the share of undertakings where there was an increase in gross value added, the number of innovative projects, the number of 
projects ensuring animal welfare, the share of undertakings where performance was enhanced, the number of agricultural holdings 
newly  processing  their  own  products,  the  overall  area  of  blanket  measures  implemented  –  for  re-parcelling,  broken  down  into 
environmental/water/erosion control measures, etc.). Another category of operation where specific indicators are added is Forest 
Infrastructure;  here,  in  view  of  the  creation  of  the  specific  priority  area  2C,  the  target  (result)  indicator  of  improvements  in  the 
structure of forest roads and other output indicators (the overall length of forest roads, the number of entities supported) were also 
added.    

EMFF:  

In relation to the EMFF, specific indicators for objectives under the Operational Programme Fisheries 2014-2020 have been set in 
the  Czech  Republic.  Examples  of  indicators  include  maintenance  of  the  aquaculture  production  volume  and,  for  technical 
assistance, the extent to which programme resources are taken up.    

Q 1.3. 

Yes;  

National Coordinating Body: 

Yes, the Czech Republic will be in a position to provide reliable data on the basis of the system established in the Czech Republic 
for reporting on stocktaking, progress and developments. 

Stocktaking, progress and developments are reported at the level of the Partnership Agreement programmes. This takes the form of 
various reports. 

1) Partnership agreement level (national requirement) 

130

 
 
 
Partnership Agreement annual report  

Annual reports on the Agreement are drawn up every year, from 2016 until 2005 inclusive, and cover the preceding calendar year. 
The annual report on the Agreement as at 31 December of year n is drawn up at the beginning of the year following (n+1) the year 
for  which  the  report  is  made,  and  is  submitted  to  the  Czech  Government  by  30  April  of  year  n+1.  The  annual  report  on  the 
Agreement is submitted to the Czech Government by this deadline to that there is time to implement the measures approved by the 
Czech Government. 

The  structure  and  content  of  the  report  on  the  Agreement  are  established  and  arranged  purely  with  a  view  to  managing  the 
implementation of the Partnership Agreement and programmes. The first part of the annual report on the Agreement provides key 
fundamental information as a basis for the Czech Government’s decisions. The second part comprises a summary overview of the 
state  of  implementation  of  the  Partnership  Agreement  and  programmes.  The  emphasis  is  on  the  aptness,  conciseness  and 
comprehensibility of the data and information disclosed. 

The  annual  report  on  the  Agreement  will  address,  in  particular,  compliance  with  ex-ante  conditionalities,  coordination  with 
programmes co-financed by ESI funds and other EU and national programmes, the level of administrative capacity, the utilisation 
of the Partnership Agreement and programmes, major projects, financial instruments and integrated tools. 

Partnership Agreement progress report (Commission requirement) 

During the 2014-2020 programming period, two progress reports on the Agreement are to be drawn up (in accordance with Article 
52 of the General Regulation): 

1.  The  progress  report  on  the  implementation  of  the  Partnership  Agreement  as  at  31  December  2016  is  to  be  submitted  to  the 
Commission by 31 August 2017; 

2.  The  progress  report  on  the  implementation  of  the  Partnership  Agreement  as  at  31  December  2018  is  to  be  submitted  to  the 
Commission by 31 August 2019. 

The structure and content of the progress report on the Agreement to be submitted in 2017 are based on Commission Implementing 
Regulation (EU) 2015/207 of 20 January 2015. 

Evaluation  reports  (evaluations),  Verification  of  the  Change  in  Development  Needs  (Partnership  Agreement  relevance),  the 
Evaluation of Compliance with Partnership Agreement Objectives and, to some degree, certain other evaluations included in the 

131

 
 
 
Partnership Agreement evaluation plan will also be used in the production of the progress report on the Partnership Agreement. 

2) Programme level 

Annual/final  reports  on  programme  implementation  –  these  are  more  detailed  in  structure  than  reports  on  the  Partnership 
Agreement. 

3) Monitoring of the uptake situation, progress and developments at the level of the Partnership Agreement and programmes 

Monitoring of the uptake situation, progress and developments at the level of the Partnership Agreement and programmes, carried 
out via the MS2014+ monitoring system, will be used in the production of the Annual Report on the Partnership Agreement, the 
Progress Report on the Partnership Agreement, and the Annual/Final Report on Programme Implementation. 

Characteristics  relating  to  the  monitoring  of  the  uptake  situation,  progress  and  developments  at  the  level  of  the  Partnership 
Agreement and programmes: 

The  situation,  progress  and  developments  in  the  uptake  of  financial  resources  from  the  ESI  funds  are  monitored  continuously, 
periodically (monthly) and ad hoc.  

The current (monthly) and cumulative levels of uptake (from the start of the programming period to the end of the current month) 
are monitored. 

Both  absolute  values  and  percentages  are  used  (e.g.  in  relation  to  the  overall  allocation,  the  relevant  levels  of  uptake,  financial 
targets, uptake check limits and limits on programme uptake, and monthly increases).  

Levels of uptake are monitored for all sources of financing and for both currencies.  

The time series in the development of uptake, by month, is recorded for the individual levels of financial resources, at individual 
programme and strategic levels, and at the level of the Partnership Agreement. 

Attention is also paid to calls, the progress status thereof, and developments in relation to the call allocation, as well as to costly 
operations  (e.g.  major  projects)  and  operations  involving  a  specific  mode  of  implementation  and  administration  (e.g.  financial 
instruments,  integrated  strategies).  With  the  EAFRD,  old  liabilities  are  also  taken  into  account.  The  situation,  progress  and 
developments  in  operations,  or  groups  of  operations,  identified  as  risky  by  an  analysis  of  risks  and  the  implementation  of  the 
financial and material programme objectives are also monitored. 

132

 
 
 
The  main data  source  is MS2014+; with  the  EAFRD and EMFF,  the State Agricultural Intervention Fund’s information system 
also comes into play. The result is output reports generated ad hoc and automatically at the end of the given month. 

The  situation,  progress  and  developments  in  the  uptake  of  ESI  funds  are  monitored  by  managing  authorities,  the  Ministry  of 
Regional Development (the national coordinating body) and the Ministry of Finance (the payment and certifying authority). 

EAFRD (Ministry of Agriculture): 

The Czech Republic will provide data for the actions it has implemented to the extent of the common indicator system established 
by Regulation (EU) No 1305/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council on support for rural development (especially 
financial data about overall public expenditure), and specific indicators that, we have concluded, it would be appropriate to track 
during the programming period. 

No;  

EMFF (Ministry of Agriculture): 

The initial intake of applications for aid under the Operational Programme Fisheries 2014-2020 took place from 21 October to 18 
November 2015. Grant award decisions shall be issued within seven months of the end of aid application intake, i.e. by 18 June 
2016. Beneficiaries have 12 or 24 months in which to implement the project and submit a payment application, i.e. until 18 June 
2017 or 18 June 2018. Only a limited number of projects will be completed and reimbursed in 2016. Although the figures for these 
projects will be reliable, in view of the limited number of simple projects reimbursed in the second half of 2016 such data will 
have little informative value in the review of the multiannual financial framework slated for 2017. 

Q 2.2. 

No;  

the Czech Republic has not taken any special measures to improve the quality of reports on financial instruments, aside from 
acquainting the relevant managing authorities with the latest version of the report template presented at the EGESIF. All reports 
will pass through the Ministry of Regional Development (the national coordinating body), as the coordinator, for consultation in 
order to ensure the consistency of reporting standards. 

Q 3.1. 

Operational Programme Research and Development for Innovation: 
In our view, only one of the findings above is correct. The internal control system of the Managing Authority of the Operational 
Programme  Research  and  Development  for  Innovation  is  not  at  fault  here.  We  do  not  have  the  authority  to  comment  on  the 

133

 
 
 
functionality of the grantee’s internal control system.  
Operational Programme Education for Competitiveness: 
In  relation  to  audited  projects  under  the  Operational  Programme  Education  for  Competitiveness,  the  ECA  audit  identified  no 
findings deriving from potential conditions artificially created for the acquisition of aid. 
Ministry of Agriculture: 
The Czech Republic disagreed with the ECA’s conclusion that the audited project had failed to meet the selection criteria and that 
there  had  been  a  serious  shortcoming  in  the  performance  of  administrative  on-the-spot  checks.  The  selection  criteria  were  laid 
down  in  the  Rules  for  Applicants  and  were  approved  by  the  Rural  Development  Programme  Monitoring  Committee.  The  State 
Agricultural  Intervention  Fund,  as  the  paying  agency,  ran  checks  on  conditions  in  accordance  with  the  applicable  Rules  for 
Applicants, which were met by the applicant concerned. The presumption that the specific applicant had purportedly acted with 
ulterior motives is an entirely subjective opinion that is difficult to prove, and cannot form the basis for general conclusions that 
there has been a serious shortcoming in the performance of administrative on-the-spot checks. 
Audit authority: 
Echoing the Commission’s position, we believe that, for purposes of legal certainty (predictability in the behaviour of grantors), 
the  award  of  a  grant  cannot  be  withheld  solely  on  the  basis  of  a  suspicion.  We  also  maintain  that,  at  the  stage  when  project 
applications  are  being  evaluated,  it  is  difficult  to  identify  conditions  artificially  created  to  acquire  aid.  Nevertheless,  the  Czech 
Republic is mindful of risks associated with the artificial creation of conditions to acquire aid and, among other things, analyses 
opportunities to adopt rules/methodology to reveal the ownership structure of companies in this context. 
In our opinion, during project implementation it is essential to monitor all indications (red flags) of this type of fraud, and to report 
such indications to the relevant national and EU anti-fraud authorities. 

Q 3.2. 

Operational Programme Research and Development for Innovation: 

The individual shortcoming identified in the award of one public contract – which had no bearing on the selection of the contractor 
–  can  no  longer  be  remedied.  Generally  speaking,  we  view  public  procurement  errors  as  a  critical  risk  to  the  Operational 
Programme  Research  and  Development  for  Innovation,  and  we  are  paying  appropriate  attention  to  this  matter.  A  public 
procurement  control  system  has  been  established.  Checks  are  conducted  by  specialised  lawyers.  Grantees  are  provided  with  the 
information they need and with methodological assistance. 

National Coordinating Body: 

In the preparation of the 2014-2020 programming period, great importance has been attached to strengthening strategic planning, 
enhancing the efficiency of the management system, and achieving objectives and results. 

The  Ministry  of  Regional  Development,  as  the  body  responsible  for  the  preparation  of  the  Partnership  Agreement  and  the 

134

 
 
 
configuration  of  the  system  for  the  management  and  coordination  of  European  Structural  and  Investment  Funds  in  the  Czech 
Republic, has capitalised on experience gained from previous programming periods to establish a basic set of rules on aid uptake 
as  a  condition  for  the  efficient  and  functioning  system  of  implementation.  These  rules,  anchored  in  the  concept  of  a  single 
methodological environment, are uniform and binding on all implementation entities. The creation of a uniform framework of rules 
via  binding  methodological  guidelines  will  result  in  the  desirable  harmonisation  of  rules  for  aid  beneficiaries  under  the  various 
support programmes. Standardised rules based on uniform approaches and principles, which are set in advance, publicly available 
and supported by a uniform interpretation, will be conducive to improved knowledge of conditions tied to the aid granted, as well 
as  the  improved  predictability  and  readability  of  this  environment,  and  will  reduce  the  intensity  of  aid  administration  among 
applicants.  

The  concept  of  a  uniform  methodological  environment  defines  the  fundamental  objectives  that  the  Ministry  of  Regional 
Development aspires to fulfil. With an aptly configured methodological environment, the Ministry of Regional Development will 
contribute to:  

• – greater efficiency and more economical handling of financial resources; 

• – greater transparency of the processes and rules behind the granting of aid; and 

• – a reduced administrative burden on entities within the implementation structure, especially aid applicants and beneficiaries. 

Ministry of Agriculture: 

The condition of a 50 % share of a young farmer in a legal person applied only in the 2007-2013 programming period. In the new 
2014-2020  programming  period,  young  farmers  must  now  hold  a  100  %  share  in  a  legal  person.    There  is  no  need  to  take  any 
further corrective action. 

Q 4.1. 

Ministry of Regional Development: 

Yes. Especially preventive measures to reduce the error rate and increase the efficiency of public procurement. These preventive 
measures  are  part  of  the  action  plan  on  General  Ex  Ante  Conditionality  4  –  Public  contracts,  in  accordance  with  Article  19  of 
Regulation (EU) No 1303/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council. 

Operational Programme Research and Development for Innovation 

(A) ECA procedures 

135

 
 
 
In  the  list  of  constituent  elements  identified  by  the  ECA,  we  recommend  adding  a  constituent  element  –  the  defining  of 
categorically inadequate qualifications for the participation of contractors in procurement proceedings. 

In the case of the constituent elements: 

• the defining of categorically inadequate qualifications for the participation of contractors in procurement proceedings; 

• the artificial split of works/services/supplies into several tenders; 

• non-compliance with publication and/or transparency requirements; 

• unlawful/discriminatory technical specifications; 

we recommend not proceeding mandatorily to a 100 % sanction, but setting a sanction derived from the seriousness of the error 
relative to the overall scope of the public contract. For example, if extensive instrumentation is to be supplied, including a laptop 
with a marginal price in the public contract, and the brand of the processor in the laptop is specified, a sanction amounting to the 
full value of the public contract for instrumentation would be out of all proportion. 

(B) other types of measures 

As  far  as  expenditure  from  EU  funds  is  concerned,  we  recommend  that  Member  States  also  revise  the  sphere  of  low-value 
contracts  that  fall  short  of  limits  prompting  the  application  of  legislation  of  general  application  to  their  award.  In  particular, 
transparency,  equal  access  and  non-discrimination  in  the  award  of  such  low-value  public  contracts  should  be  reflected  in  the 
material requirements. 

Operational Programme Education for Competitiveness: No. 

Q 5.1. 

Yes;  

Certifying authority: 

Yes. In 2015, the Czech Republic’s certifying authority for operational programmes from the 2007-2013 programming period co-
financed by Structural Funds, the Cohesion Fund and the European Fisheries Fund enhanced its procedures and expanded them to 
include a review of selected expenditure and underlying documents (on the basis of sampling). 

136

 
 
 
The certifying authority modified its procedures for regular on-the-spot checks at individual managing authorities and intermediate 
bodies  so  that  each  on-the-spot  check  by  the  certifying  authority  mandatorily  includes  an  examination  of  a  random  sample  of 
beneficiaries’ payment applications already checked and approved by the managing authority or intermediate body. This measure 
further strengthens the review of the quality of checks carried out by a managing authority beyond the scope of the administrative 
examination of management checks conducted as part of each certification of expenditure. 

National Coordinating Body: 

Harnessing  experience  from  previous  programming  periods,  the  Ministry  of  Regional  Development  (the  national  coordinating 
body)  has  long  engaged  in  activities  geared  towards  simplification.  In  the  2014-2020  programming  period,  there  is  a  particular 
emphasis on scaling down the administrative burden faced by applicants and beneficiaries of resources from ESI funds. One of the 
conduits  of  this  activity  is  the  concept  of  a  uniform  methodological  environment,  intended  to  achieve  –  by  standardising  the 
procedures  and  rules  that  it  produces  –  efficiency  and  economy  in  the  handling  of  financial  resources  from  EU  funds,  the 
transparency of processes and the lucidity of rules on the granting of aid, all with a low level of administration for entities within 
the  implementation  structure,  especially  applicants  and  beneficiaries  of  aid.  Measures  to  scale  down  the  administrative  burden 
placed on beneficiaries are largely based on the computerisation of processes and procedures. Support instruments, in the form of 
information systems, will be employed for this purpose. The emphasis will be on full, functioning, simple and reliable electronic 
communications.  In  the  configuration  of  processes  in  the  Czech  Republic,  there  are  plans  for  full  computerisation  (electronic 
signatures, data boxes) and, in this respect, for the use of a monitoring system in administrative processes throughout the project 
(and  programme)  cycle.  Interlinking  the  available  registers  will  substantially  reduce  the  administrative  burden  faced  by 
beneficiaries/managing authorities.  

In 2012, the ‘Action Plan to Improve the Management and Control System under the Structural Funds and Cohesion Fund in the 
Czech Republic’ was adopted, and it continues to be applied to this day. This plan includes measures focusing primarily on the 
performance  of  audit  work,  management  checks  and  the  handling  of  irregularities.  Numerous  measures  have  been  adopted  in 
pursuit of improvements to the management and control system. The following are examples: 

•  The  ‘Methodological  Guideline  for  the  Performance  of  Checks  under  the  Responsibility  of  Managing  Authorities  in  the 
Implementation  of  the  European  Structural  and  Investment  Funds  for  the  2014-2020  Period’,  coordinated  by  the  Ministry  of 
Finance,  has  been  prepared.  It  contains  ground  rules  on  the  configuration  of  a  managing  authority’s  management  and  control 
system, and on the performance of checks carried out by a managing authority at an intermediate body and beneficiary in the 2014-
2020  programming  period.  In  order  to  safeguard  the  financial  interests  of  the  EU  and  the  Czech  Republic,  the  methodological 
guideline also pays attention to the prevention and identification of irregularities.   

137

 
 
 
• Amendments to Act No 218/2000 on budgetary rules and Act No 250/2000 on the budgetary rules of territorial budgets. 

•  The  Act  on  the  integrated  framework  of  the  internal  management  and  control  system  in  public  administration  and  amending 
certain related laws (the Internal Management and Control Act). 

• Inspections by various different inspection bodies (Czech and European) used to take place without any central coordination. The 
Czech Republic has created an Inspection Planning Information System in order to centralise the coordination of inspection bodies. 

• The preparation of uniform checklists linked to new public procurement directives. 

Operational Programme Research and Development for Innovation: 

Yes, measures had been taken before the ECA audit. 

1.  The  checklists  used  to  carry  out  administrative  checks  and  on-the-spot  checks  of  projects  under  the  Operational  Programme 
Research and Development for Innovation that are co-financed by the ERDF have been updated. In one of its audits, the Supreme 
Audit Office evaluated the effectiveness of the system for checks on public contracts, established by the MA of the Operational 
Programme Research and Development for Innovation, in a positive light. Checklists are used in such checks. 

2.  There  is  a  great  emphasis  on  the  professional  qualifications  of  lawyers  checking  the  procedures  followed  by  grantees  in  the 
course of public procurement. The quality of such checks and the ability to formulate inspection findings correctly are confirmed 
by  the  fact  that,  when  complaints  are  lodged  with  the  Office  for  the  Protection  of  Competition  seeking  the  initiation  of 
administrative proceedings ex officio, if the complaint is based on the findings of checks carried out by such lawyers (employees 
of the MA of the Operational Programme Research and Development for Innovation), administrative proceedings are frequently 
initiated, and the proportion of unsuccessful complaints has contracted. 

3. The system for the production of plans of on-the-spot checks has been improved. Underlying planning documentation draws on 
the knowledge of various units at two different departments. Compared to the previous situation, this provides a better guarantee 
that on-the-spot checks will genuinely focus on problematic projects. 

MA of the Operational Programme Prague – Competitiveness  

Checklists  (for  checks  on  monitoring  reports,  payment  applications  and  tendering  procedure/tender  documentation)  have  been 
revised  continuously  (not  just  prior  to  certification),  especially  in  connection  with  the  provisions  of  amendments  to  the  Public 
Procurement Act, budgetary rules and other laws, or on the basis of modifications to the methodologies of the Ministry of Regional 

138

 
 
 
Development  (the  national  coordinating  body),  e.g.  the  Binding  Procedures  for  the  Award  of  Contracts  Co-financed  by  EU 
Resources beyond the Scope of the Public Procurement Act. 

Modifications, provisions and updates of working procedures (checklists) have also been carried out in response to the conclusions 
and recommendations of the Control, Auditing and Irregularities Working Party and in connection with action plans (especially in 
and after 2012). 

In addition, the MA of the Operational Programme Prague – Competitiveness, on the basis of its own findings or after receiving 
notification of a suspected irregularity (from the delegated audit body, audit authority, payment and certifying authority or other 
inspection entities, or from ‘external’ sources), has examined the content of the Project Guide (for transparency, comprehensibility, 
specificity,  comprehensiveness,  etc.)  and  Working  Procedures  (to  determine  whether  the  check  questions  are  sufficient  and 
specific,  whether  it  is  possible  to  identify  a  given  type  of  error  in  checks  on  monitoring  reports,  payment  applications  and 
tendering procedure/tender documentation), i.e. prior to reimbursement.  

Furthermore, in meetings of the Unit of the Operational Programme Prague – Competitiveness and consultations on irregularities, 
information has been communicated between financial managers concerning findings (types of errors) in such a way that they have 
been  avoided.  Aid  applicants/aid  beneficiaries  have  been  alerted  to  and  acquainted  with  errors  associated  with  non-compliance 
with rules and conditions under the Operational Programme Prague – Competitiveness at seminars and by way of updates that have 
been emailed to them.  

The MA of the Operational Programme Prague – Competitiveness has carried out preventive measures on an ongoing basis and, 
for every type of finding (error) identified, it has taken corrective action. 

Operational Programme Education for Competitiveness: 

The  checklists  used  to  carry  out  administrative  checks  and  on-the-spot  checks  of  projects  under  the  Operational  Programme 
Education for Competitiveness have been updated. 

Within the framework of audits of operations carried out by the Ministry of Finance (audit authority) since 2013, there has been a 
steadfast rise in the number of audited projects where no findings with a financial impact have been made (2013: 34.25 %; 2014: 
50.00 %; 2015: 51.28 %). Likewise, since 2013, there has been a drop in the number of findings made in audits of operations. In 
2013, there were 3.45 findings per project audited; in 2015, there were 1.49 findings per project audited. 

Department 47 – Preparation of new legislation – Act on the Management and Control of Public Finances: 

139

 
 
 
The  proposed  legislation  targets  the  simplification,  unification  and  development  of  current  legislation  on  the  system  for  the 
management and control of public finances, the cutting of red tape, and the coordination of the various systems of national and 
foreign  public  resources,  based  on  the  ‘single  audit’  principle.  The  bill  also  defines  the  responsibility  of  specific  bodies  and 
persons  for  the  introduction,  maintenance  and  refinement  of  control  mechanisms.  Specifically,  this  is  reflected  in  the  following 
areas: 

1.  The  application  of  3E  principles  –  attainment  of  the  optimal  use  of  public  expenditure  while  complying  with  applicable 
legislation. 

2. Single audit – restrictions on duplicate checks and the administrative burden on the inspected entity and the inspecting entity, 
thereby eliminating inconsistency between the decisions of the grantor and the bodies of financial administration. 

The bill also incorporates the following recommendations by the ECA and the Supreme Audit Office:  

• improve control systems;  

•  focus  checks  on  verifying  benefits  and  necessity,  and  on  compliance  with  the  principles  of  economy,  efficiency  and 
effectiveness;  

• do not concentrate solely on formal errors, which baselessly reduce applicants’ grants; 

• establish better-quality monitoring systems with a stress on delivering results. 

3. Handling of fundamental problems stemming from the practical application of the Financial Control Act 

• the transposition of Directive 2011/85/EU; 

• the transfer of responsibility for proceedings on fund deductions in response to breaches of budgetary discipline to the grantors; 

• the flexible establishment of roles in the process of economic management checks;  

• the reinforcement and expansion of the role played by internal auditing;  

• internal auditing at subordinate organisations by their founder; 

140

 
 
 
• the establishment of Audit Committees; 

• risk management. 

i) Direct benefits 

In  connection  with  the  adoption  of  the  Bill,  the  decision  was  taken  to  exclude  bodies  of  financial  administration  (bodies  of 
financial  administration  will  primarily  focus  on  the  auditing  and  management of tax revenues) and to transfer responsibility for 
proceedings on fund deductions in response to breaches of budgetary discipline to the grantors. 

ii) Indirect benefits 

iii)  The  inconsistency  of  decisions  by  grantors  and  bodies  of  financial  administration  results  in  costs  to  the  central  government 
budget or the budgets of local government units (because the European Union refuses to release funds for reimbursement). If the 
bill  is  adopted  and  this  inconsistency  is  eliminated,  there  will  arguably  be  savings  for  the  central  government  budget  and  the 
budgets of local government units.  

Other benefits: In practice, the innovation of the part of the system for the management and control of public finances relating to 
the organisation of auditing is expected to pave the way for the easier application of the ‘single audit’ principle, to make legislation 
clearer and more transparent, and to speed up and streamline the whole process of control. 

Q 6.1. 

Q 6.2. 

Yes 

No 

Q 6.3. 

Yes;  

Training on public aid – a public contract to select an accredited company that will deliver training under the Training System for 
the 2014-2020 Programming Period is at the preparatory stage. Pending the selection of a supplier in tendering procedure, ad hoc 
training, including events on general ex ante conditionalities, the procedure for which has been submitted to section management 
at  the  Ministry  of  Regional  Development  (the  national  coordinating  body),  will  be  held.  There  is  a  project  encompassing  a 
Training  System  for  the  2014-2020  Programming  Period,  under  which  it  will  be  possible  to  hold  the  aforementioned  ad  hoc 
training  and  subsequently  select  a  supplier  in  tendering  procedure.  According  to  OPTA  information,  this  project  should  be 
approved shortly. 

141

 
 
 
- In early 2016, there are plans to hold another seminar on public aid, focusing in part on services of general economic interest. 

-  A  working  party  has  been  established  at  the  Ministry  of  Regional  Development  (the  national  coordinating  body)  to  cover 
arrangements for the application of rules on public aid. This working party remains active. The public aid working party, whose 
members are representatives of the Office for the Protection of Competition, will continue to respond to problems associated with 
the implementation of rules on public aid. At present, it is focusing in particular on compliance with the information obligation 
related to the introduction of the ‘Central Information System’ from 1 July 2016. 

Q 7.1. 

In  the  2014-2020  programming  period,  in  keeping  with  the  preferences  of  the  European  Commission,  the  Czech  Republic  will 
make broad use of simplified reporting methods for the ESI funds. In relation to programmes that will be making use of simplified 
reporting  methods  in  the  new  programming  period,  these  methods  will  concentrate  on  the  configuration  of  flat-rate  financing 
(‘indirect costs’) and a standard scale of unit costs (‘unit costs’). The application of this method for simplification in the reporting 
of project expenditure responds in particular to the positive experience gained in the previous 2007-2013 programming period. 

Programmes under which simplified reporting methods have been/will be used: 

Operational Programme Employment, managed by the Ministry of Labour and Social Affairs 

- unit costs (ESF) 

- rate for indirect costs (ESF) 

Operational Programme Research, Development and Education, managed by the Ministry of Education, Youth and Sports 

- unit costs (ESF) 

- rate for indirect costs (in ESF projects, and potentially also under the ERDF) 

Operational Programme Prague – Growth Pole of the Czech Republic, managed by Prague City Hall 

- unit costs (ESF) 

- rate for indirect costs (ESF) 

All  simplified  reporting  methods  are  described  in  the  Methodological  Guideline  for  the  Eligibility  of  Expenditure  and  the 

142

 
 
 
Reporting  Thereof  in  the  2014-2020  Programming  Period,  published  by  the  Ministry  of  Regional  Development  (the  national 
coordinating  body).  The  Ministry  of  Regional  Development  (the  national  coordinating  body)  also  cooperates  with  managing 
authorities on the configuration and harmonisation of simplified reporting methods among the various managing authorities. 

Proposals for further simplification: 

The application of simplified reporting methods to public contracts 

A  problem  currently  facing  all  managing  authorities  is  that    the  situation  regarding  the  use  of  simplified  reporting  methods  in 
projects  entailing  selection  procedure  remains  unclear.  Nor  has  this  situation  been  improved  by  the  Commission’s  vague  reply, 
during a public procurement seminar on 29 October 2015, to a question as to whether simplified reporting methods could also be 
applied to the performance of public contracts. The Commission’s current position is that there are certain indications where all 
actual expenditure within the scope of a public contract needs to be checked. This means that all accounting documents must be 
recorded in detail and maintained in the project, and consequently project administration simplification peters out for beneficiaries. 
In  this  respect,  the  Commission  needs  to  be  scrupulous  in  stipulating  that  simplified  reporting  methods  can  also  be  applied  to 
public contracts. 

Shortening of the duration of the Commission’s approval procedures 

As  explained  above,  in  the  wake  of  informal  dialogue,  where  the  proposal  of  unit  costs  was  informally  approved  by  the 
Commission, it will still take another four months for the corresponding delegating act to be published. As this is a major problem 
for managing authorities, it is essential for the Commission to shorten the duration of approval procedures. 

DENMARK 

Q 1.1. 

EAFRD: Yes 

EMFF: Yes 

ESF: Yes 

ERDF: Yes 

143

 
 
 
 
 
CF: 0; Not applicable 

Q 1.2. 

EAFRD (impact indicators drawn up for participating companies): Number of new innovative companies, Number of new growth 
companies, Annual fall in participating companies’ energy and material consumption 

ESF  (result  indicators  for  participating  individuals/companies):  Number  of  surviving  participant  companies,  Number  of 
participants  who  become  self-employed,  Number  of  jobs  created  in  participating  companies,  Number  of  participants  in 
employment, incl. self employed, Number of participants who receive formal training 

EAFRD: The following impact and output indicators have been submitted in relation to the forthcoming programme amendment 
and are to be approved by the European Commission in that connection. They are therefore subject to the Commission’s approval. 

EMFF, Result indicators:  

EU  priority  1,  Specific  objective  1:  1.  Information  about  and  to  encourage  the  reduction  of  unwanted  catches  and  landing 
obligations, measured in number of analyses and pilot projects,  

Specific objective 2:  2. Extent of good ecological condition achieved, measured in km of watercourses restored to good ecological 
condition; 3. More knowledge of fishing’s impact on and interaction with the marine ecosystem, measured in number of analyses 
and pilot projects 

EU priority 2, Specific objective 2: Change in the amount of organic aquaculture production, measured in tons 

EU priority 5, Specific objective 1: Change in the amount of ASC-certified aquaculture production, measured in tons 

Specific objective 2: Employment maintained, measured in FTE 

Q 1.3. 

Yes;  

The  Danish  Business  Authority  systematically  collects  data  on  output  and  results/impact  from  all  EAFRD  and  ESF  projects, 
measured using common indicators and programme-specific indicators. External evaluations are carried out for all relatively large 
projects  (those  that  receive  DKK  2  million  or  more  in  EU  aid).  However,  there  are  expected  to  be  relatively  few  completed 
projects to measure and evaluate in 2017.  

144

 
 
 
EAFRD and EMFF: Denmark expects to be able to provide relevant data in accordance with the requirements of the Regulation. 

Q 2.2. 

No;  

The Authority has the data required to answer the compulsory questions in EGESIF-15-0015. The Commission has not requested 
further information nor otherwise indicated that Denmark’s answers were unsatisfactory. 

Q 4.1. 

No. Denmark follows the Commission’s guidelines for financial corrections. 

Q 5.1. 

Yes;  

The Danish Business Authority, which is the managing authority for EAFRD and ESF, has provided training on procurement law 
to  its  own  employees  and  those  of  the  notified  bodies  (growth  forums).  The  managing  authority  has  also  reinforced  its  internal 
expertise  by  further  training  some  staff  to  become  specialists  in  procurement  law.  Moreover,  it  is  explicitly  stated  in  the  aid 
eligibility  rules  and  the  contracts  with  beneficiaries  that  the  procurement  rules  must  be  followed.  The  changes  have  been 
implemented from the start of the 2014–2020 period and no procurement errors have been identified as yet in the refund claims 
from beneficiaries that have been examined. It is therefore not possible at present to judge whether these preventive measures stop 
all procurement errors. All refund claims are checked by the managing authority to ensure they comply with the procurement rules 
before payment is made. 

Q 6.1. 

Yes 

Q 6.2. 

No 

Q 6.3. 

No;  

No systemic issues have been identified. 

Q 7.1. 

The Danish Business Authority has used a number of the simplified cost options in its aid eligibility rules: continuation of the flat 
rate that was introduced in 2011, continued use of a national standard cost option for participant support/hourly pay, and use of the 

145

 
 
 
special flat rate in ESF Article 14 for projects that do not receive State aid. Furthermore, the managing authority has made use of 
the possibility of employing flat rates from other EU programmes, since Horizon 2020 rates can be used for innovation projects. 
The Danish Business Authority has thus made use of all the relevant opportunities in the regulations, with the exception of lump 
sums, for which there was not considered to be sufficient data at present. 

ESTONIA 

Q 1.1. 

EAFRD: Yes 

EMFF: Yes 

ESF: Yes 

ERDF: Yes 

CF: Yes 

Q 1.2. 

The ones agreed in the Operational Programmes. 

Q 1.3. 

Q 2.2. 

Yes 

Yes 

Q 4.1. 

No 

Q 5.1. 

Yes;  

In  Estonia  the  1st  level  control  is  quite  detailed,  especially  in  the  area  of  public  procurement.  In  essence  each  procurement  is 
verified  against  all  of  the  provisions  of  the  Procurement  Act.    This  allows  us  to  track  down  the  majority  of  procurement 
irregularities during management verifications and thus exclude them from certified expenditure. Consequently the error rate has 

146

 
 
 
 
 
been quite low in recent years. 

Q 6.1. 

Yes 

Q 6.2. 

Yes;  

A few years ago the incentive effect was not respected in several cases, but the problem has now been solved. 

Q 6.3. 

Yes;  

Additional re-verifications in the area of incentive effect, a few years ago. 

Q 7.1. 

Will be implemented, where possible. 

FINLAND 

Q 1.1. 

EAFRD: Yes 

EMFF: Yes 

ESF: Yes 

ERDF: Yes 

CF: No; Not in use. 

Q 1.2. 

Additional  performance  indicators  can  be  found  in  Annex  2  to  Finland’s  programming  document  on  the  structural  fund 
programme, 'Sustainable Growth and Work 2014-2020'. 

Q 1.3. 

Yes; 

As  concerns  the  EAFRD,  we  can  indicate  how  all  measures  in  the  programme  have  been  launched.  As  regards  the  measures 

147

 
 
 
 
 
launched in the years 2014 and 2015, we can describe the anticipated impacts and whether the objectives for those measures can be 
achieved  in  the  2014-2020  programming  period.  For  technical  reasons,  the  implementation  of  several  measures  was  delayed. 
Regarding these, only commitment data will be available. 

Information regarding the effectiveness of Structural Fund programme measures. 

Q 2.2. 

No;  

Financial instruments are not in place in the EMFF. Reporting concerning the Structural Fund data for the programming period 
2014-2020 is currently under way. 

Q 4.1. 

No 

Q 5.1. 

No;  

Reply of the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry: As concerns the new programming period, administrative checks have not yet 
begun. 

Reply  of  the  Ministry  of  Employment  and  the  Economy:  Administrative  checks  are  carried  out  on  all  payments  before 
expenditures are certified and declared to the Commission. The error rate has remained at a low level in available measures. 

Q 6.1. 

Yes 

Q 6.2. 

No 

Q 6.3. 

Q 7.1. 

Yes;  

State aid rules will be taken into account at each stage of the verification process. 
The use of simplified cost options (SCOs) could be applied as a general rule for the financing of projects. The actual cost model 
will be used only in exceptional cases, for example in the case of technical assistance projects, public procurement projects and 

148

 
 
 
 
 
investment projects that do not have salary costs. 

FRANCE 

Q 1.1. 

FEADER: Oui 

FEAMP: Oui 

FSE: Oui 

FEDER: Oui 

FC: Non; Ne s’applique pas 

Q 1.2. 

Pour ce qui concerne les indicateurs de réalisation : 

Chaque  autorité  de  gestion  a  la  responsabilité  de  son  programme.  Dans  ce  contexte,  lorsque  des  indicateurs  de  réalisation 
spécifiques étaient nécessaires pour le cadre de performance, ces indicateurs ont été intégrés dans le programme par l’autorité de 
gestion  elle-même.  Ces  indicateurs  sont  dès  lors  contractualisés,  dans  le  cadre  du  plan  d’évaluation,  avec  la  Commission 
européenne et feront l’objet des examens de la performance de 2019 et de 2025.  

Il  n’est  pas  prévu  de  mettre  en  place  des  indicateurs  de  performance  supplémentaires  ou  complémentaires  des  programmes  (au 
sens indicateurs des cadres de performance) au niveau national. 

Pour ce qui concerne les indicateurs de résultat :  

La  décision  a  été  prise  au  niveau  national  de  ne  pas  intégrer  d’indicateurs  de  résultat  dans  les  cadres  de  performance  des 
programmes. 

Q 1.3. 

Cette possibilité dépend de la date à laquelle le réexamen à mi-parcours du cadre financier pluri annuel aura lieu : En effet, les 
autorités de gestion fourniront leur rapport annuel de mise en œuvre (RAMO) complet en juin 2017. L’EM doit fournir un rapport 
d’avancement en août 2017. Il sera possible de se servir de ces informations si le calendrier le permet. Les données selon le modèle 
décrit  dans  le  Règlement  d'exécution  (UE)  n  °  1011/2014  de  la  Commission  du  22  septembre  2014  pourront  également  être 

149

 
 
 
 
 
 
communiquées. 

Q 2.2. 

Oui;  

Un  groupe  de  travail  dédié  aux  instruments  financiers  et  réunissant  les  autorités  de  gestion  et  les  autorités  nationales  compétentes  a  été 
officiellement mis en place le 12 novembre 2015. Sa feuille de route mentionne la nécessité de suivre l’état d’avancement de la mise en place 
des instruments à l’échelle nationale. Il a été également rappelé la responsabilité des autorités de gestion de faire suivre l’information sur les 
instruments financiers pour faciliter la consolidation des données. 

Un tableau de bord national va ainsi être produit, sur la base des éléments contenus dans la communication du groupe de l’EGESIF.  

Pour  mémoire  à  ce  stade,  aucun  instrument  n’a  été  créé  et  le  suivi  a  été  réalisé  sur  la  base  du  contenu  prévisionnel  des  Programmes 
opérationnels. 

Q 3.5. 

Les instructions et procédures nationales ont été finalisées entre 2012-2013 (cf note du 12 octobre 2012 sur le contrôle du respect 
des  marchés  publics  notamment,  note  du  18  décembre  2012  relative  aux  contrôles  administratifs  (visite  sur  place,  fiabilité  du 
demandeur  …),  note  du  20  mars  2013  apportant  des  précisions  sur  le  caractère  raisonnable  des  coûts  ,note  du  02  octobre  2013 
relative aux contrôles administratifs et contrôles sur place pour les dépenses de rémunération, note du 6 novembre 2013 relative au 
renforcement du contrôle interne au sein des services instructeurs etc.) L'appropriation de ces différentes notes et instructions a du 
ensuite  être  mise  en  œuvre  dans  les  procédures  de  contrôles  des  services  instructeurs.  Plusieurs  réunions  d'information  ont  été 
mises en place pour aider les services instructeurs dans l'appropriation de ces différentes notes. 

L’origine  de  ces  irrégularités  vient,  pour  une  part  non  négligeable,  du  niveau  de  complexité  lié  directement  aux  procédures  de 
passation  de  marchés  publics.  En  effet,  il  existe  un  volume  important  d’actes  législatifs  tant  au  niveau  européen  qu’au  niveau 
national qui peut conduire à une relative méconnaissance de ceux-ci et qui nécessite une expertise et une maîtrise dans la mise en 
place des procédures de marchés publics. 

Q 3.6. 

L’ordonnance  du  23  juillet  2015  relative  aux  marchés  publics  transpose,  en  droit  français,  les  deux  directives  européennes 
2014/24/UE  et  2014/25/UE  du  26  février  2014  afin  de  rassembler,  au  sein  d’un  corpus  juridique  unique,  les  règles  communes 
applicables aux contrats qualifiés de «marchés publics».  L’ordonnance entrera en vigueur lorsque les décrets d’application seront 
publiés et au plus tard le 18 avril 2016. Le principal objectif de cette ordonnance est de rassembler, au niveau législatif et en un 
seul texte, les règles applicables aux contrats considérés comme des « marchés publics » au sens des directives européennes.  

Par ailleurs, le programme national d’assistance technique 2014-2020 prévoit de financer des formations destinées aux autorités de 
gestion, de certification et d’audit des programmes sur différentes thématiques dont les marchés publics. Dans ce cadre, un groupe 

150

 
 
 
de travail au niveau national a été mis en place afin d’organiser la mise en œuvre de ces formations notamment dans les domaines 
suivants : 

- les règles applicables en matière de marché publics 

- les principales irrégularités constatées et les corrections financières à appliquer 

- exercices pratiques de contrôle de marchés publics 

Les  autorités françaises souhaitent signaler l’effort d’information et de diffusion fait au profit des autorités de gestion en matière 
de marchés publics. D’une part, le guide établi par la Commission a été diffusé largement auprès des autorités de gestion. D’autre 
part, un site internet dédié à la commande publique piloté par la direction des affaires juridiques du ministère des finances a été mis 
en  place.  Ce  site  actualise  tous  les  éléments  concernant  les  marchés  publics  ainsi  que  toutes  les  informations  nécessaires  et 
répondant aux adjudicateurs. Il fait également référence au guide d’orientation à destination des praticiens « comment éviter les 
erreurs les plus fréquentes commises dans le cadre de projets  financés  par  les  Fonds structurels  et  d’investissement européens » 
en  date  de  novembre  2015.  Enfin,  la  plateforme  du  CGET  permet  aux  praticiens  de  se  rencontrer  et  de  soulever  des  problèmes 
communs voire d’élaborer des maquettes et listes de contrôles pour l’application des règles en matière de marchés publics. 

Depuis  2014,  dans  le  contexte  de  régionalisation  du  Feader,  afin  de  poursuivre  la  démarche  de  sécurisation  des  dépenses,  de 
nouvelles  instances  de  gouvernance  de  la  mise  en  œuvre  opérationnelle  du  Feader  ont  été  instituées  et  poursuivent  les  travaux 
engagés précédemment. 

Ainsi, trois Comités opérationnels (COMOP) ont été créés associant l’État, les régions, autorités de gestion et l’organisme payeur 
afin d’aborder les questions de mise en œuvre de la programmation Feader dans ses aspects opérationnels et techniques : 

-Le COMOP hors SIGC : ce comité opérationnel est notamment chargé de suivre l'évolution de l'instrumentation des aides hors 
SIGC ainsi que des procédures (manuels, formulaires, modes opératoires, conventions de paiement…) ; 

- Le COMOP SIGC qui est chargé notamment de suivre l'évolution de l'instrumentation et de la mise en œuvre opérationnelle des 
mesures SIGC du Feader ; - - Le COMOP audits et contrôles qui est chargé notamment de mutualiser des recommandations des 
corps  de  contrôle  et  d’audits,  entre  les  autorités  de  gestion,  de  développer  et  mutualiser  les  pratiques  sur  le  contrôle  interne, 
d'élaborer  des  consignes  relatives  aux  modalités  d'application  des  points  de  contrôles  administratifs  et  le  cas  échéant  d'aborder 
certains aspects en lien avec la campagne de contrôles sur place. 

151

 
 
 
Q 4.1. 

La CICC a émis le 3 mars 2014 une recommandation aux autorités de gestion et de contrôle visant à actualiser la liste de contrôle 
Marchés publics conformément à la décision de la Commission européenne du 19/12/2013 – C(2013) 9527 

Q 5.1. 

Oui;  

Dès 2013, les autorités nationales ont mis en place un groupe de travail interfonds portant sur la règlementation, la gestion et le 
contrôle  des  fonds  européens  structurels  et  d’investissement.  Composé  d’autorités  de  gestion  07-13  et  14-20,  des  ministères 
coordinateurs,  et  des  corps  de  contrôle,  ce  groupe  de  travail  se  réunit  régulièrement,  et  vise  à  sécuriser  la  gestion  des  fonds 
européens en France.  

Plusieurs documents de travail ont été produits ou sont en cours de finalisation dans le cadre de ce groupe. A titre d’illustration, 
peuvent être cités : des trames communes des documents de gestion (demande de subvention, rapport d’instruction, acte attributif 
de l’aide, demande de paiement…), un guide relatif au suivi, à la gestion et au contrôle des FESI, des fiches métier pour assister les 
services instructeurs et les autorités de gestion, les textes encadrant l’éligibilité des dépenses… L’ensemble de ces travaux visent à 
apporter  des  outils  d’aide  à  la  mise  en  œuvre  et  à  la  sécurisation  des  fonds  en  France.  Ils  pourront  être  utilement  complétés  en 
fonction de nouveaux besoins identifiés, ou de l’évolution de la règlementation. En associant le plus en amont possible les corps de 
contrôle  (autorité  de  certification  et  d’audit),  l’objectif  est  d’établir  un  cadre  commun  d’exigences  et  de  vigilances  pour  la 
programmation à venir.  

Par ailleurs, des études peuvent être conduites (mise en place des coûts simplifiés…) et des formations peuvent être dispensées, en 
fonction des besoins exprimés par les autorités de gestion (ex : formation sur les aides d’Etat, sur les marchés publics…).   

Q6.1. 

Q 6.2. 

Oui 

Oui; 

la CICC, autorité d’audit n’a pas détecté d’irrégularité de nature systémique. Deux cas de non-respect de régimes d’aides d’Etat 
ont été constatés : l’une, dans le domaine de l’environnement (erreur dans le calcul de l’assiette de l’aide) et l’autre, pour une aide 
accordée  dans  le  cadre  d’un  contrat  de  crédit-bail  pour  l’acquisition  de  machines  (non  répercussion  de  l’aide  perçue  vers  le 
bailleur. 

Q 6.3. 

Oui;  

Le  26  mars  2015,  le  ministre  de  l’intérieur  a  adressé  une  lettre  aux  secrétaires  généraux  aux  affaires  régionales  (SGAR)  et  au 

152

 
 
 
Commissariat  général  à  l’égalité  des  territoire  (CGET)  rappelant  notamment  les  dispositions  de  la  circulaire  du  6  mai  2011 
concernant  le  renforcement  des  procédures  de  gestion  et  de  contrôle  des  programmes  opérationnels  FEDER  2007-2013,  dont 
l’annexe A concernait spécifiquement la question des aides d’Etat 

S’agissant de la programmation 2014-2020, le CGET s’est engagé dans l’accord de partenariat à : 

- Elaborer une circulaire relative à la nouvelle réglementation des aides d’Etat pour la période 2014-2020. Cette nouvelle circulaire 
est  en  cours  de  rédaction,  elle  rappellera  la  définition  de  la  notion  d’aide,  présentera  les  nouveaux  textes  européens  et  les 
principales règles de compatibilité des aides d’Etat et expliquera les différentes règles procédurales liées à la réglementation des 
aides d’Etat.  

-  Mettre  en  œuvre  un  plan  national  de  formation  à  destination  des  autorités  de  gestion,  de  contrôle  et  de  certification.  Les 
formations ont débuté et 100 personnes ont déjà été formées. Ces personnes seront en mesure de réaliser ensuite des formations en 
interne grâce à une diffusion gratuite et accessible à tous d’un kit pédagogique comprenant les supports de formation, une FAQ, un 
glossaire et des cas pratiques.  

- Créer un réseau d’experts régionaux sur la réglementation des aides d’Etat. Ce groupe s’est réuni pour la première fois en juillet 
2014,  il  regroupe  des  représentants  des  ministères,  des  conseils  régionaux,  des  associations  de  collectivités  territoriales  et  des 
préfectures de région. Ce groupe de travail permet de mettre en œuvre la réglementation 2014-2020 au niveau national (élaboration 
de  régimes  d’aides)  et  d’organiser  des  échanges  de  bonnes  pratiques  (production  de  notes  d’interprétation  et  de  guides 
méthodologiques). 

-  Créer  un  site  unique  dédié  aux  aides  d’Etat  sur  le  site  Europe  en  France  afin  de  satisfaire  aux  nouvelles  obligations  de 
transparence imposées par la Commission européenne 

Q 7.1. 

Afin d’aider les autorités de gestion dans la mise en place des options de coûts simplifiés, le Commissariat général à l’égalité des 
territoires  –(CGET)  a  lancé  une  étude  visant  principalement  à  offrir  une  prestation  d’appui  méthodologique  aux  autorités  de 
gestion  volontaires  afin  de  construire  des  méthodologies  de  coûts  simplifiés  (barème  standard  de  coûts  unitaires,  montant 
forfaitaire dans la limite de 100 000 euros de contributions publiques) utilisables dans le cadre de la nouvelle programmation 2014-
2020. Cette opération permettra effectivement aux autorités de gestion des programmes d’utiliser concrètement la procédure des 
coûts simplifiés dans le cadre de projets cofinancés par les fonds européens structurels et d’investissement afin d’alléger la charge 
administrative des bénéficiaires. 

Toutefois, les autorités françaises regrettent l’absence de confirmation par la Commission européenne de la possibilité d’utiliser les 
coûts simplifiés avec la réglementation des aides d’Etat. En effet, les  options de coûts simplifiés  ont pour objectif de simplifier 

153

 
 
 
l’utilisation  des  fonds  européens,  or  les  règles  d’aides  d’Etat  sont  largement  appliquées  lors  de  l’octroi  de  fonds  européens.  Ce 
refus aurait des conséquences négatives sur les possibilités d’utilisation des options de coûts simplifiés.  

Pour  le  programme  national  FSE  «    Emploi  et  inclusion  en  métropole  »  et  le  programme  national  IEJ  au  titre  desquels  la 
Délégation générale à l’emploi et à la formation professionnelle (DGEFP) est autorité de gestion, celle-ci recourt massivement aux 
taux forfaitaires qui ne nécessitent aucune justification préalable (soit qu’ils aient été prévus par les règlements, soit qu’il s’agisse 
de réutiliser des taux justifiés sur la programmation précédente). Ainsi, 3 taux forfaitaires sont disponibles dans l’outil de gestion 
életronique « Ma démarche FSE ». 

En outre, après plus d’un an d’échanges avec la Commission européenne, la DGEFP a défini un barème standard de coût unitaire 
pour un dispositif porté par l’Etat et cofinancé par le FSE « la Garantie Jeunes » et validé par l’UE au titre de la procédure d’acte 
délégué (art. 14§1 du règlement  (UE) n°1304/2013). 

GERMANY 

Q 1.1. 

ELER: Yes 

EMFF: Yes 

ESF: Yes 

EFRE: Yes 

KF: Yes 

Q 1.2. 

EAFRD: The 2014-2020 rural development plan for Saxony-Anhalt contains three alternative indicators, namely P2 – number of 
projects, P3 – number of beneficiaries (public institutions) and P5 – total agriculture and forestry area administered under the 
promotion scheme for carbon capture and storage, expressed in hectares (E5). To measure the specific effects of sub-measures within 
a federal state, suitable indicators are used where necessary in the reporting framework. 
ERDF: Since the Länder are responsible for the ERDF in Germany, additional and complementary performance indicators are 
defined for each Operational Programme (e.g. private R&D expenditure as a percentage of GDP, the exports-to-GDP ratio, gross 
value added per employed person or the number of funded universities and research establishments). The allocation of the 
performance reserve, and hence the description of the performance framework, is also effected at the level of the Operational 

154

 
 
 
 
 
Programmes. There is no national performance reserve in Germany and therefore no national performance framework.  
Federal ESF Operational Programme: Seven additional programme-specific output indicators and 28 additional programme-specific 
result indicators were established for the 2014-2020 ESF programming period. 
Yes;  

Q 1.3. 

EAFRD: By the mid-term review of the MFF for 2014-2020, it is estimated that sufficient information will be available on any 
persistently high error rates for individual rural development plans. The content of the information required for analysis by the 
Commission will be tailored to the Commission’s specific stipulations.  
Federal ESF OP: Material and financial data for performance analysis of the federal OP are available from the implementation 
reports. 

No;  

ERDF: It is not yet possible to provide a direct answer to this question. As things stand, the designation of the authorities and of the 
management and control systems should be completed in 2016. In view of the recasting of the systems and the complexity of the 
rules (Regulation, delegated and implementing legislative acts, guidelines, etc.) there are likely to be considerable delays in calls for 
funds compared with the previous period. In most of the Länder, the majority of projects were not launched until 2015. Although 
projects can be prefinanced from national funds or advances, most of the multi-annual investment projects will not have produced 
any tangible results yet. 

Q 2.2. 

Yes;  

ERDF: The reports on the individual Operational Programmes for the 2007-2013 period are based on the template for Financial 
Engineering Instruments operations implemented without a holding fund; where financial instruments co-financed from the ERDF 
are issued, the reports will be forwarded to the Commission with the annual implementation reports. At the Commission’s request, 
details on financial instruments in the 2014 annual reports for some Länder, such as Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania, were 
supplemented with information on the number of loan agreements concluded with beneficiaries. For the new programming period, 
reports will be based on the Guidance Note on reporting on financial instruments. To this end, the IT and monitoring systems for 
financial instruments will be adapted to meet the new requirements, and the quality of data will be reviewed and, where necessary, 
improved. 

Federal ESF OP: In the annual implementation report, reporting on the programme content is now likewise based on the prescribed 
template (see ERDF reply above). Reporting for the 2014-2020 period will be in accordance with Implementing Regulation 

155

 
 
 
 
 
 
821/2014. In the future the relevant data fields for reporting will be recorded electronically and form the basis of the reports. 

No;  

EAFRD: There is no need to report on financial instruments, as no financial instruments have been programmed. 

No response 

The responsible authorities point out that the Commission already possesses the requested information on these questions. 

Q 3.3. 

Q 3.4. 

Q 3.5. 

This was an extremely complex individual case in one specific building project. 

Q 3.6. 

The responsible authorities point out that the Commission already possesses the requested information. 

Q 4.1. 

 No 

Q 5.1. 

Yes;  

ERDF: Among the main measures for the avoidance of errors relating to procurement are more systematic on-the-spot inspections 
and dedicated training courses for intermediate bodies, revision of checklists for on-the-spot inspections, increases in manning 
levels, etc. Examples include adapting instructions for funding management and spelling them out in greater detail for intermediate 
bodies, continuing to develop and supplementing checklists for inspection procedures and increasing the effectiveness of on-the-spot 
inspections. In some Länder the methods for selecting projects to undergo on-the-spot inspections have been altered, so that the 
focus is now on projects with the potential for procurement-related errors and on large-scale projects, in which procurements 
exceeding the threshold may be required. In many Länder, compliance with public procurement rules is verified before funds are 
paid out to the relevant beneficiary. In some cases, new computerised procedures have been developed which require beneficiaries to 
transmit the relevant core information on the completed procurements before  funds are paid out.  

No;  

Federal ESF OP: The federal ESF managing authority possesses what are essentially proven and effective management and control 
systems.  

156

 
 
 
 
 
 
Q 6.1. 

Q 6.2. 

Q 6.3. 

This is borne out by the annual control reports submitted by the ESF audit authority under Article 62(1)(d)(i) of Regulation (EC) No 
1083/2006 in respect of the federal European Social Fund 
programmes during the 2007-2013 programming period. Where necessary, specific improvements are made on a regular basis to 
make checks more effective. 
Yes 

No  

Yes;  

ERDF: Compliance with the rules on state aid is comprehensively audited. When funding guidelines and principles are drawn up, the 
question whether a funding activity involves state aid is examined by the appropriate responsible Land authority. Where state aid is 
involved, the funding basis is structured in such a way that the rules on state aid (the de minimis rule, General Block Exemption 
Regulation, SGEIs, etc.) are observed.  If the funding is not provided on the basis of an aid scheme, a case-by-case audit is 
conducted, and a declaration or notification is made if necessary.   During the application process, compliance with the legal 
conditions governing state aid, such as SME status and de minimis funding rates, is checked. In the framework of management 
verifications (checks on drawdowns, on-the-spot inspections, etc.), compliance with funding conditions and state-aid rules is also 
reviewed. In most Länder there is a central office where all funding arrangements are checked against the rules governing state aid. 
This office cooperates closely with the State Aid Control Policy Division of the Federal Ministry for Economic Affairs and Energy at 
the national  level and communicates all aid-related information, such as changes in EU provisions on state aid and new ECJ 
judgments, to the agencies entrusted with the implementation of ERDF operations. New funding guidelines are being drawn up by 
the competent specialised divisions in consultation with this office. 
For the 2014-2020 programming period, the checklists for on-the-spot inspections were adapted – and, in some cases, supplemented 
– to allow for verification of compliance with the rules on state aid.   
In addition, there are pre-existing close and structured contacts between the audit authorities of the Länder, the national coordinating 
authority – the Federal Ministry of Finance – and the Commission and also among the federal coordination offices through which 
experience is shared and information exchanged. Moreover, the subject of state aid is addressed by supraregional and 
interdepartmental working groups, the aims being the early identification of areas in which state aid is an issue or is liable to pose 
problems, clarification and documentation of matters concerning the compatibility of support measures and structural funds with EU 
aid legislation and ensuring that a description of the necessary procedural steps is incorporated into the creation of the management 
and control system. Importance also attaches to continuous exchanges with the Commission on current developments in this field, 
such as new Commission checklists on state aid.  
Federal ESF OP: No errors or deficiencies have been identified in the federal ESF framework as regards compliance with state-aid 

157

 
 
 
 
Q 7.1. 

rules. The federal ESF managing authority is responsible for effective, economical and proper administration and implementation of 
the federal ESF Operational Programme. Its responsibility includes ensuring that the rules on state aid are being observed. The 
federal ESF managing authority, which is the division responsible for aid matters in the Federal Ministry of Labour and Social 
Affairs, regularly takes part in meetings of the joint federal-Länder working group organised by the lead ministry, the Federal 
Ministry for Economic Affairs and Energy, to discuss current issues regarding aid legislation, thereby helping to ensure proper 
nationwide application of EU aid legislation to national and EU funding measures. 
In the framework of the federal ESF programme, government ministries and implementing agencies obtain additional information 
from a guide to the relevant categories of non-compliance with aid rules. In addition, the IT software for the 2014-2020 ESF 
programming period will contain mandatory fields for the purpose of recording relevant information, such as that relating to 
compliance with EU state-aid rules. 
ERDF: In the 2014-2020 period, wider use will be made of simplified cost options in many German ERDF programmes in those 
Länder where appropriate funding guidelines have been or are being adopted on the basis of Articles 67 and 68 of Regulation (EU) 
No 1303/2013. These lay down the conditions for the use of simplified cost options and regulate their practical exercise. The ERDF 
managing authorities of the Länder, together with the authorities responsible for the application of general budgetary law, examine 
how the simplified cost options are being applied in the ERDF OPs and how their use can be facilitated. It should be noted, however, 
that the measures supported by the ERDF are largely investment-related and that there is considerably less scope for the use of 
simplified cost options in connection with such measures than in the case of the largely labour-intensive ESF measures. For this 
reason, flat rates and other simplified cost options will be considerably less practicable in the ERDF context in cases such as support 
activities in which staff costs and indirect costs are being funded. In those cases where beneficiaries can demonstrate a higher 
percentage of overheads, project costs will continue to be cleared on the basis of evidence of expenditure.  
Federal ESF OP: Use is being made of the simplification options for which the EU Regulations provide. In the project-funding 
programmes of the Federal Ministry of Labour and Social Affairs,  
which account for six of the Ministry’s eight programmes, flat rates are used for cost calculation. The same applies to the ESF 
programmes of the Federal Ministry of Family Affairs, Senior Citizens, Women and Youth and the Federal Ministry for the 
Environment, Nature Conservation, Building and Nuclear Safety. The use of flat rates in these programmes means that only staff 
costs and,  where appropriate, professional fees, are calculated on the basis of proof of payment. All other material costs, such as 
rents, additional property expenses, telephone charges, postage, administrative overheads and travel expenses, are defrayed by means 
of a flat percentage rate applied to the staff costs. The promoter is thus freed from the administrative burden of providing evidence of 
all material and administrative overheads. Moreover, a workshop has been held for the purpose of briefing the federal ministries 
involved in the implementation of the ESF in the programming period from 2014 to 2020 on the enhanced rules regarding flat rates. 

158

 
 
 
 
 
 
GREECE 

Q 1.1. 

EAFRD: Yes 

EMFF: Yes 

ESF: Yes 

ERDF: Yes 

CF: Yes 

Q 1.2. 

Q 1.3. 

In addition to the common indicators (common indicators) of this question, the operational programmes for the period 2014-2020 
(co-financed by the ESF/ERDF/Cohesion fund/EAFRD) also use additional programme-specific result indicators, as required by 
Regulation  (EU)  No  1303/2013.  These  indicators  are  included  in  each  approved  programme  document,  as  included  in  the  EU 
database SFC 2014. 

 Information on the achievement of the national targets of the ‘Europe 2020’ strategy will be available in the ESS Progress Report 
in 2017 (and in 2019). However, since the implementation of OPs will not have delivered before the report is submitted in 2017, 
no material data are expected to be available for the mid-term review of the MFF. In 2019, as in the final report on the 
implementation of the OPs and the FTA, we will have material information on the contribution of the Programmes to the 
implementation of the Union strategy for smart, sustainable and inclusive growth. 

Q 2.2. 

No response 

Q 3.5. 

No response 

Q 3.6. 

No response 

Q 4.1. 

No 

159

 
 
 
 
Q 5.1. 

Yes;  

The approved management and control system for the period 2007-2013 provides for the administrative verification of expenditure 
before their declaration to the EU and the on-the-spot management verifications after the declaration of related expenditure to the 
EU.  This  practice  was  followed  in  order  to  allow  for  the  compliance  of  the  management  and  control  system  with  the  relevant 
Commission guidance and the implementation of a reliable and objective sampling method for the selection of operations/projects 
for  on-the-spot  verification  by  the  managing  bodies.  It  is  further  noted  that  as  regards  the  legality  of  the  notice  for/award 
of/amendment to public procurement, the Greek system provides for ex ante control (prior to the declaration of expenditure by the 
beneficiary) by the managing bodies.   Given the multi-annual character of the OPs, this practice did not restrict the possibility of 
ex-post corrections to expenditure declared to the EU by the managing bodies themselves and/or the Audit Authority; however, it 
is  also  true  that  it  leaves  room  for  declaring  expenditure  to  the  EU  which  may  contain  errors  that  should  be  corrected 
retrospectively.  

The  management  and  control  system  for  the  OPs  of  the  2014-2020  NSRF  resumes  the  prior  check  of  the  legality  of  public 
procurement  but  places  particular  emphasis  on  the  administrative  verifications  carried  out  by  the  MAs  of  the  OPs,  before  the 
declaration  of  expenditure  to  the  EU.    On-the-spot  verifications  are  carried  out  again  after  the  administrative  check  by  the 
managing bodies, even after the declaration of expenditure to the EU, but the implementation of their programming is completed 
before  the  submission  of  the  annual  accounts.  It  should  be  noted,  however,  that  the  first-level  management  verifications  are 
unquestionably  the  most  effective  tool  for  prevention  and  early  treatment  of  errors,  but  it  should  be  borne  in  mind  that  the 
managing  bodies  are  faced  with  a  very  significant  volume  of  requirements  to  be  met  simultaneously,  some  of  which  are  also 
conflicting (objectives of the OP, absorption, detection of possible fraud, regularity and legality of expenditure, etc.) and this is in 
itself a risk factor for the simultaneous coverage of those requirements. In this context, the provision of guidance from the EU to 
provide  practical  answers,  as  well  as  the  transfer  of  good  practices  between  MS  through  the  EU  are  the  elements  of  success  in 
managerial work. 

Q 6.1. 

No response 

Q 6.2. 

No response 

160

 
 
 
Q 6.3. 

No response 

Q 7.1. 

Provision was made for the use of all the possibilities provided by the new regulatory framework in national eligibility rules. The 
eligibility rules have also incorporated the possibility of using simplified cost options (flat rate for indirect costs) adopted by the 
EU in the period 2007-2013. As concerns in particular the compensation for indirect costs, the national eligibility rules provide that 
they are eligible only when calculated as a lump sum amount. 

For the further use of simplified cost options in the ERDF/CF, there is a provision for specific updating/training of all operators on 
the use of simplified cost options and the conditions for their implementation and the support in the ex ante calculation, in order to 
allow their use in future calls for measures with a large number of separate categories of expenditure and a low level of programme 
estimates. 

HUNGARY 

Q 1.1. 

EAFRD: Yes 

EMFF: Yes 

ESF: Yes 

ERDF: Yes 

CF: Yes 

Q 1.2. 

The performance indicators set out in the individual operational programmes. 

Q 1.3. 

Q 2.2. 

Yes 

No;  

161

 
 
 
 
 
Q 3.1. 

Q 3.2. 

We made the necessary corrections on the basis of the guidance notes with similar content in previous years; no further measures 
were required; the domestic report for 2015 complies with the relevant EU requirements. In previous years we participated in the 
quality improvement programme launched by the European Commission in this field, in which the competent staff in the 
Commission provided preliminary comments (before official submission) on the draft report, enabling the necessary corrections to 
be made before submission. 

In audit mission No 2014/HU/REGIO/C2/1364/1, the European Commission found that the Member State had carried out on-the-
spot checks only at financial intermediary, not at final recipient, level. These checks were not suitable for a complete evaluation of 
the eligibility of the underlying expenditure. At the same time, the Commission ordered the managing authority / holding fund to 
amend its procedures or agreements with financial intermediaries to ensure that on-the-spot checks would be carried out at final 
recipient level. That would provide adequate coverage for audits, ensuring that only eligible expenditure would be reported to the 
Commission. 
The monitoring regulations of the Fund manager have been amended/supplemented with detailed rules on the on-the-spot check of 
final recipients.  
In order to facilitate the uniform and correct interpretation of the rules on the prohibition of project splitting or multiple aid, on 21 
October 2013 and 13 January 2015 the Managing Authority drew the attention of financial intermediaries to the key importance of 
filtering such projects. 
Beyond all that, the examination of compliance with the above rules is also a priority inspection criterion of on-the-spot checks at 
final recipient level. 

Q 4.1. 

We have no experience of any measures other than those for assessing and quantifying non-compliance with public procurement 
rules already required under EU law; however,  several  nationally  prescribed measures apply to the serious infringements listed, 
e.g. 

- pursuant to Section 137(1) of Act CXLII of 2015 on public procurement, the contract is void if 

a) it was concluded by illegally omitting the public procurement procedure; 

b)  as  a  result  of  a  public  procurement  procedure  without  prior  publication,  the  contract  was  concluded  while  the  conditions  for 
applying a procedure without prior publication were not in place, 

and, when detecting such an infringement, the Public Procurement Board of Appeal launches a suit in order to declare nullity and 
apply legal consequences, 

- in the case of the infringements listed by the Court of Auditors as well as other infringements, any economic operator concerned 

162

 
 
 
may request, and the persons or organisations listed in Section 152(1) of Act CXLII of 2015 may initiate, the remedial procedure 
by the Public Procurement Board of Appeal. As a result of the remedial procedure, the Board of Appeal may also impose a fine 
pursuant to Section 165 of Act CXLII of 2015 in addition to the above (in serious cases the fine is mandatory or its maximum 
amount is higher than the average); 

Pursuant to Government Decree No 272/2014 of 5 November 2014 on the use of support from certain European Union funds in the 
2014–2020 programming period, no support amount may be paid if the result of the audit of the public procurement procedure is 
‘non-eligible’;  furthermore,  the  appropriate  financial  correction  may  also  be  applied  as  a  result  of  conducting  the  irregularity 
procedure. 

Q 5.1. 

Yes;  

The  findings  of  first  and  second  level  checks  are  incorporated  in  the  audit  system,  for  example:  more  complex  follow-up  of 
irregularities, with retrospective processing from the beginning of the period; OP specific checking of invoices out of turn (e.g. 
income-generating projects, invoices affected by flat-rate correction). 

Q 6.1. 

Q 6.2. 

Yes 

No 

Q 6.3. 

Yes;  

In  the  case  of  calls  for  proposals  and  priority  projects,  the  State  Aid  Monitoring  Office  operating  within  the  Prime  Minister’s 
Office performs preliminary examination of compliance with State aid rules or, in the framework of first-level checks, it is checked 
by the intermediate bodies / managing authorities on the basis of the statements by tenderers. 

Q 7.1. 

As  coordination  body,  the  Prime  Minister’s  Office  has  drawn  up  a  methodological  guidance  for  clearing  on  a  lump  sum  and 
standard scale of unit cost basis in the 2014–2020 period. The guidance has been agreed with the managing authorities and the 
audit authority. In the 2014–2020 calls for proposals, managing authorities pay special attention to using the simplified clearance 
guidelines where possible. 

163

 
 
 
 
 
 
IRELAND 

Q 1.1. 

EAFRD: Yes 

EMFF: Yes 

ESF: Yes 

ERDF: Yes 

CF: 0 

Q 1.2. 

ESF:  As detailed in the 2014-2020 OP (2014IE05M9OP001) 

ERDF: As detailed in the two ERDF 2014-2020 OPs (2014IE16RFOP001 and 2014IE16RFOP001) 

EMFF: OP not officially adopted, details of additional indicators subject to change. 

Q 1.3. 

Yes;  

ESF - As detailed in the 2014-2020 OP (2014IE05M9OP001) 

EMFF  –  The  current  draft  OP  includes  context  indicators  taken  from  the  EMFF  Regulation,  as  the  EMFF  OP  is  not  yet  adopted,  these 
indicators cannot yet be enumerated. 

ERDF – The Operational Programmes will be reporting programme-specific output and result indicators annually, and these will be available 
for MFF mid-term review. 

Q 2.2. 

No;  

Financial Instruments are not being used in Ireland’s ESIF programmes at this time and as such the guideline quoted is not directly 
relevant to Ireland’s reporting system. 

164

 
 
 
 
Q 3.7. 

Q 3.8. 

Q 4.1. 

Public Procurement for LEADER projects is evaluated and approved by the Local Action Groups, under delegated contract from 
DECLG.  In  most  cases  the  project  promoter  relies  on  engineers/architects  or  other  such  agencies  to  handle  the  procurement 
process. On some occasions the promoter, having already been advised on the correct method of dealing with procurement issues, 
entered into post-tender negotiations with suppliers. These breaches, therefore, were outside the control of the Department from an 
administration perspective, giving rise to the irregularities. 

Under the 2014-2020 programme, the initial project evaluation and approval process will contain more specific and comprehensive 
reviews of all aspects of public procurement requirements. This early stage intervention is designed to minimise the risk of future 
irregularities involving procurement issues.   

The ERDF Audit Authority review all operations audit samples for compliance with public procurement national and EU rules.  
Any financial corrections required are based on compliance with the Procurement Directives and Treaty Principles and the types of 
irregularities and scales of correction are set out in the Commission Decision document C(2013)9527. 

Since the issue of this document, the scales of correction also apply to contracts that fall outside the scope of the directives and 
these are the only ones applied by the ERDF Audit Authority. 

Other National Public Procurement Guidelines are issued in the form of; 

• National Public Procurement Guidelines for Supplies & Services (2009) 

• Capital Works Management Framework (for all public works & consultancy contracts) 

• Circulars from DPER Initiatives to assist SMEs in Public Procurement 

• Central contracts put in place for National Procurement Service 

• Procurement of Legal Services 

• Arrangements for ICT expenditure 

However  the  rates  of  financial  correction  used  for  breach  of  national  public  procurement  rules  are  those  used  in  Commission 
Decision C(2013)9527. 

Further, in relation to the question of oversights in the awarding of Government contracts, public procurement practices are subject 

165

 
 
 
to audit and scrutiny under the Comptroller and Auditor General (Amendment) Act 1993, and the Local Government Reform Act 
2014,  and  Accounting  Officers  are  accountable  for  expenditure  incurred.    Individual  contracting  authorities  are  responsible  for 
establishing arrangements for ensuring the proper conduct of their affairs, including conformance to standards of good governance 
and accountability with regard to procurement. 

Q 5.1. 

Yes; 

Ireland applies a 2% error rate threshold prior to the certification of its ESF and ERDF claim. 

Q 6.1. 

Yes 

Q 6.2. 

Q 6.3. 

Q 7.1. 

No 

No 

On ERDF, it is intended to use simplified flat rate financing for indirect and staff costs in accordance with Art. 68 of the Common 
Provisions Regulation. 

ITALY 

Q 1.1. 

No response 

Q 1.2. 

No response 

Q 1.3. 

No response 

Q 2.1. 

Yes;  

Within  the  framework  of  the  Annual  Implementation  Report  2014,  detailed  information  on  the  financial  engineering  instruments  has  been 
provided (Managing Authority reply - ROP Campania ESF 2007-2013). 

The Managing Authority has accepted the Commission's document and will give it due consideration in the next report (reply from the Audit 
Authority for the Umbria region). 

166

 
 
 
 
 
Q 3.3. 

Q 3.4. 

Q 3.5. 

Q 3.6. 

Q 3.7. 

Q 3.8. 

Q 4.1. 

Q 5.1. 

Q 6.1. 

Q 6.2. 

Q 6.3. 

Q 7.1. 

In the case in question, a cover crop was found which, although different from that requested, could ensure that the objectives of the measure 
were achieved. 
We consider that this cannot be a weakness or shortcoming in the control system, since the holding was not selected for on-the-spot checks, 
and only such checks would have made it possible to establish that a different crop was in place. 
In view of the comments made during the audit, and in line with the procedures provided for in such cases, the sanctions laid down have been 
applied. 
The case examined by the European Court of Auditors relating to the Puglia region, as comprehensively argued by the Italian authorities, was 
an instance of recourse to collaboration agreements between public authorities, which were already in existence and in use in the rural 
development programmes that were the subject of the audit. 
In such cases, on the basis of the Court of Justice's established case-law, a tender procedure does not have to be opened on the basis of 
Directive 15/2014. 
See above. 

See above. 

See above. 

No response 

No response 

No response 

No response 

No response 

No response 

167

 
 
 
 
LATVIA 

Q 1.1. 

EAFRD: Yes 

EMFF: Yes 

ESF: Yes 

ERDF: Yes 

CF: Yes 

Q 1.2. 

A  monitoring  and  evaluation  system  has  been  created  for  evaluating  the  operational  programmes  of  the  European  Agricultural 
Fund  for  Rural  Development  (EAFRD)  and  the  European  Maritime  and  Fisheries  Fund  (EMFF),  whereby  complementary 
indicators (outcome, result and context indicators) are gathered and applied in addition to the indicators included in the operational 
programmes. This is to achieve a more effective and higher quality assessment of the progress, performance and effectiveness of 
the programmes.  

However,  in  the  Latvian  operational  programme  Growth  and  Employment  (an  ERDF,  CF  and  ESF  multi-fund  programme) 
programme-specific indicators are used and this enables a more precise illustration of the substance and intervention logic of each 
specific  support  objective.  Both  result  and  outcome  indicators  are  laid  down  for  each  specific  support  objective.  Financial 
indicators at the level of specific support objectives are also incorporated into the Member State's statutory legislation, which also 
stipulates the additional information to be gathered for assessing the impact, effectiveness and performance of intervention. This 
information is stored in the management information system set up for monitoring the ERDF, the CF and the ESF. 

Q 1.3. 

Yes; 

In common with other Member States, Latvia's mid-term targets for all ESI funds are scheduled for 31 December 2018. Taking into account 
the  differing  approaches  to  notifying  indicators,  in  2017  more  significant  progress  in  the  framework  of  the  ERDF,  the  ESF  and  the  CF  is 
anticipated in connection with ESF support measures (i.e. for outcome indicators, notification may consist of partially completed operations 
under  the  provisions  of  a  given  programme  which  are  of  significance  for  assessing  the  performance  and  effectiveness  of  the  operational 
programme  concerned).  The  quantity  of  data  on  the  results  achieved  may  vary  among  different  priority  axes,  depending  on  the  fund  in 
question, the fulfilment of ex ante conditions and the development of statutory legislation at national level. It is anticipated that by 2017 fewer 
data  may  have  been  notified  on  outcome  indicators  with  respect  to  priority  axes  which  involve  the  construction  of  physical  objects 

168

 
 
 
 
(ERDF/CF), while as far as financial indicators are concerned, certified expenditure is planned for all priority axes. As concerns the EAFRD 
and the EMFF, data on results achieved in line with the targets set out in EAFRD and EMFF operational programmes will be provided in 2017 
and 2019. These data are of importance for assessing the performance and effectiveness of operational programmes. However, in view of the 
fact that the EAFRD and EMFF operational programmes only began to be implemented 2015, in terms of notifying outcome indicators, no 
significant progress is anticipated by 2017. 

Q 2.2. 

No;  

Q 4.1. 

Q 5.1. 

In Latvia's case, there were no guidance notes or official observations on improving the quality of data when providing annual information on 
financial instrument data. Data are being provided in accordance with the European Commission's specifications. 

Procurements are conducted in accordance with national legislation which has been drawn up on the basis of/transposing the provisions of EU 
legislation.  
In the case of the EAFRD and the EMFF, before payments are made, checks are conducted on the eligibility of procurements, and detailed 
checklists are completed including questions on selecting a suitable procurement procedure, compliance with technical specifications and other 
check questions.  
As a preventative measure, in order to identify infringements in procurement procedures as early as possible and to avoid the occurrence of 
ineligible expenditure, ex ante checks on procurements are conducted in accordance with the provisions of Chapter VII of Cabinet Regulation 
No 419 of 26 June 2007 on the procedures used by the bodies involved in the management of EU Structural Funds and the Cohesion Fund to 
prepare programming documents and implement the funds. 
Yes;  

During  the  2007–2013  programming  period  the  managing  authority  for  EU  funds  and  the  institutions  delegated  to  perform  monitoring  and 
control functions set up a series of checks on expenditure prior to their approval by the European Commission. 
•  Ex  ante  checks  on  procurements  were  carried  out  (see  the  answer  to  question  4.1),  and  the  methodology  for  these  checks  was  regularly 
improved and updated to take account of current problems and trends. These checks were conducted by the Procurement Monitoring Bureau 
and the competent  authorities/liaison bodies; 
• Checks were carried out in situ at project implementation sites in accordance with Cabinet Regulation No 140 of 16 February 2010 on the 
procedures used by the managing authority, the certifying authority, the liaison body or the competent authority to carry out on-site checks of 
projects financed by the EU Structural Funds and the Cohesion Fund. Cabinet Regulations have been updated and the check methodology has 
been improved to achieve more effective planning and performance of checks. This is done by the competent authorities, the liaison bodies and 
the managing authority for EU funds; 
• Checks on supporting documentation for expenditure have been carried out in accordance with Cabinet Regulation No 1041 of 25 November 
2010 on  procedures  under  which  State  Budget  resources  are  provided  for  the execution  of European  Union  Fund  co-financed  projects,  and 
procedures for effecting payments and preparing expenditure declarations. Cabinet Regulations were updated along with the guidance material 
relating to checks on eligible expenditure. This is done by the competent authorities/liaison bodies; 
• The managing authority for EU funds provides for the regular monitoring of the checks conducted by competent authorities/liaison bodies, in 
order to verify that the authorities are conducting the work delegated to them to a suitably high standard and that no shortcomings have been 

169

 
 
 
 
identified that would have an impact on the correct functioning of the management and control system. 
In  the  light  of  experience  gained  during  the  previous  planning  period  and  the  proposals  put  forward  in  various  assessments  and  working 
groups, in order to optimise the management and control system for the ESF, EFDF and CF 2014–2020 programming period and to ensure that 
checks are effective and result-orientated, the 'one-stop shop' principle has been introduced, i.e. project selection and checks are carried out by 
a  single  body.  EAFRD  and  EMFF  project  selection  and  checks  are  also  the  responsibility  of  a  single  body.    This  enables  the  managing 
authority to optimise the planning of checks on delegated functions to verify whether they have been carried out appropriately and whether 
expenditure  being  declared  to  the  European  Commission  is  eligible,  thereby  facilitating  the  work  of  the  head  of  the  ESF,  ERDF  and  CF 
managing  authority  and  the  head  of  the  EMFF  managing  authority  in  the  preparation  of  the  2014–2020  programming  period  ESI  fund 
management declarations. In the new programming period, the managing authority also has an enhanced role in relation to the ESF, the ERDF 
and the CF in its monitoring of the implementation of recommendations made to liaison bodies in audits and reviews, in that the managing 
authority  conducts  the  final  checks  on  the  implementation  of  these  recommendations.  Therefore,  in  the  new  programming  period  the 
management  and  control  system  incorporates  preconditions  aimed  at  improving  management  checks  and  consolidating  the  effectiveness  of 
these  checks.  For  the  EAFRD  and  the  EMFF,  provisions  are  laid  down  for  checks  during  the  course  of  project  evaluation,  checks  during 
project implementation, in situ checks, in situ checks during project monitoring and also EAFRD and EMFF managing authority checks of the 
liaison body in order to verify that this body is carrying out the tasks delegated to it by the managing authority to a suitably high standard and 
that no shortcomings have been identified that would have an impact on the effective functioning of the management and control system. 
Yes 

No;  

At the development level for support programmes and individual projects (ad hoc aid) compliance with State aid rules and procedures is 
monitored by the Finance Ministry's Department for the monitoring of aid for commercial activity. The Latvian authorities do not therefore 
anticipate any systemic problems or deficiencies in the development of support programmes. 
In accordance with the provisions of national legislation, i.e. the Law on the monitoring of aid for commercial activity, each planned support 
programme or individual support project, and each planned amendment to an existing programme or individual support project , must be 
submitted by the aid provider to the Ministry of Finance before the start of its implementation for an initial assessment, except where formal or 
administrative amendments are being made which would not have an impact on an assessment of the commercial support measure's 
compatibility with the EU internal market. This also applies to support for commercial activities which under EU legislation is not subject to 
prior notification or the submission of summary information to the European Commission, including de minimis aid. 
No;  

Measures have not been necessary as no systemic issues or deficiencies have as yet been identified in connection with State aid rules in the 
area of European structural and investment funds. 

An 'Evaluation of the experience of using simplified costs during the 2007–2013 EU funds programming period and the options 
for using simplified costs during the 2014–2020 programming period' was carried out at the Finance Ministry, and on the basis of 
this evaluation the Ministry developed three methodologies for using simplified costs: the 'Methodology for applying flat rates for 

170

Q 6.1. 

Q 6.2. 

Q 6.3. 

Q 7.1. 

 
 
 
 
 
indirect costs in the recognition of project expenditure during the 2014–2020 programming period'; the 'Methodology for applying 
a standard scale of unit costs during the 2014–2020 programming period'; and the 'Methodology for applying lump sum payments 
during  the  2014–2020  programming  period'.  These  methodologies  provide  an  explanation  of  simplified  cost  options,  thereby 
encouraging their use and promoting their common application by all the bodies involved in the management of European Union 
funds in Latvia.   

LITHUANIA 

Q 1.1. 

ESF: Yes 

ERDF: Yes 

CF: Yes 

Q 1.2. 

Where  general  funds  indicators  are  insufficient,  special  indicators  are  used.  They  can  be  set  on  the  level  of  the  Operational 
Programme for EU Funds Investments for 2014-2020 approved by Commission Decision No C(2014) 6397 of 8 September 2014 
(‘the Operational Programme’) or on the national level. 

Q 1.3. 

No;  

No  essential  changes  that  may  affect  the  mid-term  review  of  the  MFF  planned  in  2017  and  the  amount  of  the  MFF  funds  allocated  to  the 
Lithuania have been established. 

Q 2.2. 

Yes;  

The managing authority has informed project promoters about the European Commission’s requirements for filling in statements for financial 
instruments.  After the project promoter submits a completed statement for financial instruments, the managing authority checks whether the 
information provided in the statement is in line with the European Commission’s guidelines on statements for financial instruments (EGESIF 
150015  06/05/2015).    In  the  case  of  inconsistencies  the  managing  authority  submits  comments  to  project  promoters  in  respect  of  the 
completion  of  the  said  statements  and  asks  them  to  provide  clarifications.  Moreover,  with  a  view  to  properly  completing  statements  for 
financial instruments, the managing authority consults representatives of the European Commission. 

Q 3.1. 

There was no clear information (guidelines) from the European Commission on the assessment of artificial conditions. 

171

 
 
 
 
 
 
Q 3.2. 

Q 4.1. 

We did not agree with the observation because we have a system for assessing artificial conditions but it is not the most acceptable to external 
audit authorities. It is not always possible to identify artificial conditions and prove them when the project is being approved, which means that 
whenever certain risks are identified, the project is approved as a high-risk project and supervised for 7 years (where the usual supervision 
period is 5 years). Such projects are checked on an annual basis and where any new circumstances are identified, an investigation into the 
irregularity pertaining to artificial conditions is initiated.   We have informed the European Commission that we can usually identify possible 
artificial conditions during the project implementation and have provided some examples of our system. 
A methodology for establishing artificial conditions was also drawn up and approved in accordance with Chapter 7 of Annex II (PF 6312). 
With a view to ensuring the proper implementation of the Operational Programme in accordance with the requirements of the EU regulations 
and prevent irregularities in the area of public procurement, the system of administering the EU structural funds in 2014-2020 (like during the 
previous period) involves the Public Procurement Office which the Law of the Republic of Lithuania on public procurement deems responsible 
for the implementation of the public procurement policy and the enforcement of the Law of the Republic of Lithuania on public procurement 
and related implementing legislation, prevention and consultations on public procurement matters as well as the administering of the Central 
Public Procurement Information System. With a view to ensuring that management checks are conducted properly and duly, the Ministry of 
Finance as the management authority has adopted national legislation containing provisions setting out the procedure for checking public 
procurement documents for project promoters and approved a sample public procurement checklist (the sample public procurement checklist 
was approved by the working party administering the EU structural funds for 2014-2020 established by Order No 1K-243 of the Minister for 
Finance of the Republic of Lithuania of 11 July 2013 establishing a working party and by Minutes No 19 of 29 May 2015). Moreover, as part 
of prevention activities concerning irregularities in the area of public procurement, the plan for the period of administrating the EU structural 
funds of 2014 2020 includes the improvement of the Central Public Procurement Information System, which will enable intermediate bodies to 
control public procurement procedures conducted using the tools of the Central Public Procurement Information System with greater 
efficiency. Detailed proposals concerning the customisation of the Central Public Procurement Information System to the public procurement 
control exercised by intermediate bodies have been submitted to the Public Procurement Office entrusted with the administration of the Central 
Public Procurement Information System by the Law of the Republic of Lithuania on public procurement. The Public Procurement Office has 
developed and implemented the Public Procurement Risk Management Information System (‘the PPRMIS’) using a risk management 
methodology for calculating risks inherent to specific contracting authorities and their public procurement procedure throughout the public 
procurement cycle, thus exercising control thereof. The PPRMIS enables system users at any time to receive risk assessments and risk profiles 
of contracting authorities and their public procurement procedures and procurement contracts, to select highest-risk projects and contracts for 
assessment and to choose contracting authorities for checks. With a view to enhancing and maintaining the administrative capacity of 
authorities administering the EU structural funds, the managing authority collects and assesses information on its own administrative 
capacities and those of other authorities and the need to enhance them, develops and improves a system for building and promoting those 
administrative capacities on the basis of information received and organises centralised training to enhance administrative capacities. 
Examples of centralised training events organised by the managing authority in the area of public procurement: 
– 1 December 2015 – “Public procurement: award and supervision of contracts (goods and services)”. That training event covered dispute 
settlement solutions before and after the contract is awarded, specific aspects of awarding contracts, aspects concerning amendments to 
contracts, etc.; 
– 6 November 2015 – “Public procurement: award and supervision of contracts (works)”. That training event covered specific aspects of 
implementing works contracts, specific features of FIDIC contracts, pricing of works contracts, etc.; 

172

 
 
 
– 3 November 2015 – “Public procurement: cost-effectiveness assessment, a practical workshop”. The event covered cases where proposals 
were assessed on the basis of the cost-effectiveness criterion, the identification of cost-effectiveness criteria, parameters and their comparative 
weights, specific aspects of expert evaluations, etc.; 
– 28 April 2014 and 12 November 2014 – “Public procurement for projects financed by the EU Structural Funds and its supervision”. The 
event covered the scope and types of public procurement controls, ex ante and ex post controls and specific aspects thereof, assessment and 
use of inspection results, sampling-based controls, planning, implementation and evaluation thereof, practical examples featuring completed 
projects, etc.  
The managing authority informs authorities administering the EU structural funds about upcoming centralised training events by publishing 
information on the website of the EU Structural Funds www.esinvesticijos.lt and/or by e-mail to contact persons indicated by such authorities. 
With a view to improving the efficiency of payment request checks and on-the-spot project checks in Lithuania, there are management controls 
planned to ensure the proper implementation. National legislation regulating the administering and financing of the EU structural funds sets 
out that on-the-spot checks must be conducted for each project at least once during the implementation period (exceptions are only possible 
when  applying  a  selection  methodology  coordinated  with  the  managing  and  the  certifying  authorities).  The  managing  authority  supervises 
functions delegated to intermediate bodies, checks on-the-spot checks performed by intermediate bodies in accordance with the risks identified 
and the plan of risk management measures and verifies payment requests submitted by project promoters and checked by intermediate bodies.  
Internal procedures of intermediate bodies regulating all functions and controls exercised by the body are continuously reviewed and improved 
taking into account any self-detected shortcomings, legislative amendments and observations put forward by an audit authority and received 
during  other  inspections.  There  are  checklists  to  be  completed  during  management  verifications  and  on-the-spot  verifications  of  individual 
operations, which are detailed and focusing on each aspect of eligibility and which require not only checking an action completed but also 
providing explanations (what has been assessed and/or checked when completing the action). Checklists contain detailed instructions to the 
staff with a view to ensuring a uniform understanding. Checklists, like internal procedures, are continuously reviewed and improved to detect 
as  many  inconsistencies  as  possible.  Management  verifications  and  on-the-spot  verifications  of  individual  operations  conducted  by  an 
intermediate body (the implementing authority) are supplemented with various actions to prevent irregularities and reduce risks (e.g. training 
for applicants and project promoters, preliminary inspection of documents selected, counselling, etc.), thus seeking to inform project promoters 
as early as possible about requirements to be respected and about possible negative consequences in the event of non-compliance. 
The managing authority ensures that the certifying authority receives all required information on expenditure-related procedures and checks 
conducted in the course of approval. The certifying authority, exercising the right stipulated in paragraph 70 of the Rules for the administration 
and financing of operational programmes approved by Resolution No 1225 of the Government of the Republic of Lithuania of 12 November 
2008  approving  the  Rules  for  administering  and  financing  operational  programmes  and  taking  into  account  any  information  available  on 
irregularities  detected  and  not  eliminated,  the  results  of  its  checks  and  the  audit  observations  and  recommendations  given  by  the  audit 
authority, the Court and the European Commission, deducts (reduces) certain expenditure and/or does not declare it if it cannot confirm that 
the expenditure is eligible for declaring to the European Commission. 
Yes 

No  

173

Q 5.1. 

Q 6.1. 

Q 6.2. 

 
 
 
Q 6.3. 

Yes;  

With a view to ensuring the implementation of competition principles and prevent violations relating to state aid, the administering of the EU 
structural funds in 2014-2020 involves the Competition Council of the Republic of Lithuania (‘the Competition Council’). The Competition 
Council consults various authorities and project promoters on matters of the competition policy and state aid, conducts expert evaluations of 
state aid projects and organises training (e.g. on 17 December 2015 the Competition Council is to hold a conference “State aid: relevant issues 
and practical application”). The conference is to discuss the principles and procedures of granting state aid and other practical aspects. With a 
view to improving state aid control and compliance with legislation on state aid, the Ministry of Finance as the managing authority carries out 
checks on two levels (on the level of the implementing measure of a priority of the Operational Programme for EU funds investments for 
2014-2020 (by completing a general state aid checklist (the sample checklist on state aid and de minimis aid granted or not granted is approved 
by the working party administering the EU structural funds for 2014-2020 established by Order No 1K-243 of the Minister for Finance of the 
Republic of Lithuania of 11 July 2013 establishing a working party and by Minutes No 8 of 27 June 2014) and on the project level (the 
checklist for project compliance with state aid rules (the form of the checklist for project compliance with state aid rules is approved by 
ministries together with the project financing terms and conditions on the basis of sample checklists presented by the managing authority or a 
sample checklist for project compliance with de minimis aid rules approved by Minutrs No 17 of the working party administering the EU 
structural assistance for 2014-2020 of 24 April 2015).  Moreover, when supervising tasks delegated to intermediate bodies, in the risk 
management plan the management authority provided for a measure to check whether intermediate bodies using the general checklist for state 
aid established the granting or non-granting of state aid under the financing terms and conditions, and where state aid was granted, the 
management authority checked whether implementing authorities properly established the compliance of state aid with state aid rules on the 
basis of a detailed state aid checklist drawn up by an intermediate body and taking into account the quality of checks completed. As mentioned 
in the reply to Question 4.1, with a view to enhancing and maintaining the administrative capacity of authorities administering the EU 
structural funds, the managing authority collects and assesses information on its own administrative capacities and those of other authorities 
and the need to enhance them, develops and improves a system for building and promoting those administrative capacities on the basis of 
information received and organises centralised training on state aid topics to enhance administrative capacities. In 2014 and 2015 there were 
training events organised on state aid topics presenting the concept of state aid and its features, general principles for granting state aid, risks of 
unlawful state aid in the areas of education, science, social protection, employment and others as well as practical principles of granting state 
aid.  
The managing authority ensures that the certifying authority receives all required information on expenditure-related procedures and checks 
conducted in the course of approval. The certifying authority, exercising the right stipulated in paragraph 70 of the Rules for the administration 
and financing of operational programmes approved by Resolution No 1225 of the Government of the Republic of Lithuania of 12 November 
2008 approving the Rules for administering and financing operational programmes and taking into account any information available on 
irregularities detected and not eliminated, the results of its checks and the audit observations and recommendations given by the audit 
authority, the European Court of Auditors and the European Commission, deducts (reduces) certain expenditure and/or does not declare it if it 
cannot confirm that the expenditure is eligible for declaring to the European Commission. 

Q 7.1. 

National legislation sets out that all intermediate bodies drawing up implementation plans for implementing measures relating to 
priorities under the Operational Programme for EU Funds Investments for 2014-2020 and setting project financing conditions must 

174

 
 
 
 
consider applying a simplified procedure for paying expenditures to projects. During the financing period of 2014-2020 Lithuania 
established  a  flat-rate  scheme  for  indirect  costs  of  projects  financed  by  the  EU  Structural  Funds  (project  administration  costs) 
(Order  No  1K-316  of  the  Minister  for  Finance  of  the  Republic  of  Lithuania  of  8  October  2014  approving  the  Rules  for  project 
administration and financing, Annex 10). All indirect costs of projects will be financed by applying the flat rate.  On 26 June 2015 
the managing authority organised a conference “Possibilities for applying a simplified procedure for paying expenditures in 2014-
2020” where representatives of national authorities planning and implementing measures of the Operational Programme (including 
those  financed  by  the  ERDF  and/or  the  CF)  were  told  about  possibilities  of  applying  a  simplified  procedure  for  paying 
expenditures and its benefits in the process of administering the EU structural funds. 

LUXEMBOURG 

Q 1.1. 

FEADER: Oui 

FEAMP: Ne s’applique pas 

FSE: Oui 

FEDER: Oui 

FC: Ne s’applique pas 

Q 1.2. 

FEDER: Il s’agit uniquement d’indicateurs communs et financiers 

FSE:  Indicateurs  spécifiques  au  niveau  des  projets  en  fonction  de  la  nature  des  projets  (projets  de  formation,  d’insertion, 
d’insertion socio-professionnelle et de système/structure) 

FEADER: Des indicateurs supplémentaires ne sont pas encore déterminés, mais il n'est pas exclu que le Luxembourg aura recours 
à des indicateurs autres que ceux prévu par le CCES cadre commun d'évaluation et de suivi.     

Q 1.3. 

Oui;  

FEDER: Il s’agit d’indicateurs de réalisation communs fournis par chaque bénéficiaire 

175

 
 
 
 
 
FSE:  Les  données  financières  et  de  suivi  sont  collectés  semestriellement  au  niveau  des  opérations.  Leur  réalité  et  exactitude  sont  vérifiées 
semestriellement sur base d’un contrôle ex ante à 100% sur pièce et sur place 

Q 2.2. 

Non;  

FEDER: Le Luxembourg n’utilise pas les instruments financiers 

FSE: Vu la taille de l’enveloppe financière, le FSE au Luxembourg n’a pas recours aux instruments financiers 

FEADER: L'autorité de gestion du Feader ne rédige pas de tel rapport car le Feader n'a pas  mis en œuvre des  mesures ayant recours à des 
instruments financiers. 

Q 4.1. 

Q 5.1. 

Non 

Oui;  

Q 6.1. 

Q 6.2. 

Q 6.3. 

FEDER: Nouvelle check-list de contrôle (mesure ex-post),  
Note d’orientation sur les incidences de la règlementation sur les aides d’État en matière de RDI (préventif),  
Réunions de sensibilisation avec le bénéficiaire (préventif), 
Formation du staff 
FSE: Des négociations et discussions bilatérales avec les porteurs de projet (bénéficiaires) ont lieu lors de l’établissement de      la convention 
FSE. Ceci permet de clarifier les éventuelles ambiguïtés. 
Par la suite, l’Autorité de gestion effectue des contrôles ex-ante à 100% sur pièces et sur place de toutes les dépenses      déclarées et ce sur une 
base semestrielle. 
Elle a également recours aux options de couts simplifiés, ce qui permet de mieux cibler les missions de contrôles. 
Oui 

Non 

Oui;  

FEDER: Nouvelle check-list de contrôle (mesure ex-post), 
Note d’orientation sur les incidences de la règlementation sur les aides d’État en matière de RDI (préventif),  
Réunions de sensibilisation avec le bénéficiaire (préventif), 
Formation du staff. 
FSE: En ce qui concerne l’AG, les mesures préventives supplémentaires ne sont pas jugées nécessaires car des déficiences ou des problèmes 
systémiques n’ont pas été décelés en la matière (les mesures applicables actuellement sont suffisantes). 

176

 
 
 
 
 
Q 7.1. 

FEDER: Présentation de l’option aux bénéficiaires potentiels, 

Réunions de sensibilisation, 

Guide de l’utilisateur avec recommandations pour encourager les bénéficiaires à recourir à cette option. 

MALTA 

Q 1.1. 

EAFRD: Yes 

EMFF: Yes 

ESF: Yes 

ERDF: Yes 

CF: Yes 

Q 1.2. 

By  way  of  example,  the  focus  will  be  on  operational  programmes  I  and  II  under  the  Cohesion  Policy.  Both  list  results-related 
indicators in line with the objectives of EU 2020. Those indicators will facilitate decisions as to whether the objectives have been 
attained  or  not.  Examples  of  indicators  include  'undertakings  use  the  internet  to  make  sales  through  e-commerce’  and  ‘older 
workers finding jobs, in spite of their age’. 

Q 1.3. 

Yes;  

The measures will be closely linked and depend on the progress to be made at that stage of implementation. 

Q 2.1. 

Yes;  

Training for officials/Database providing solutions to the existing requirements. It should also be noted that as far as the financial instruments 
are concerned, all of the guidance notes issued by the Commission will be taken into account. 

177

 
 
 
 
 
 
Q 4.1. 

Q 5.1. 

Q 6.1. 

Q 6.2. 

Q 6.3. 

Q 7.1. 

Yes. These measures include manuals and guidelines for beneficiaries, training for these beneficiaries and, where necessary, issue of circulars. 

Yes;  

Simplification,  improvement  of  databases,  bilateral  meetings  between  the  Management  Authority  and  the  beneficiaries  in  the  presence  of 
senior officials from the contracts department and the department making the payments. 
Yes 

No 

Yes;  

The funds are all centralised under one Management Authority that coordinates with the State Aid Monitoring Board during the processing of 
applications for any given project. 

The intention is to adopt ‘flat rate financing’ in relation to the two funds. In addition, the ‘standard scale of unit costs’ will be used 
in relation to the European Social Fund. 

NETHERLANDS 

Q 1.1. 

EAFRD: 0 

EMFF: 0 

ESF: Yes 

ERDF: Yes 

CF: 0 

Q 1.2. 

With  regard  to  the  ESF,  we  would  refer  you  to  the  ESF  2014-2020  operational  programme,  which  gives  these  indicators,  and 
which is the subject of an annual report.  

178

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Q 1.3. 

Q 2.2. 

Q 3.5. 

Q 3.6. 

Q 4.1. 

Q 5.1. 

Q 6.1. 

Q 6.2. 

Q 6.3. 

With regard to the ERDF, please see the following breakdown by managing authority. 

Yes 

No;  

The guidance referred to relates to the new 2014-2020 programming period. No financing instruments for that period have yet been launched 
in the Netherlands. 

Checks have been carried out and improvements have been found. 

The Netherlands has drawn up an error rate action plan for the rural development programme, in consultation with the European Commission, 
and has informed the Commission accordingly. 
The Procurement Act 2012 (Aanbestedingswet 2012, ‘Aw2012’) entered into force in the Netherlands on 1 April 2013. It is the most recent 
transposal of the European directives for the classic sectors (2004/18/EC) and utilities (2004/17/EC). The requirements referred to are 
incorporated here. The Act also includes the rules governing public contracts to which the European requirements do not apply. These rules are 
spelt out in more detail in the Proportionality Guide (Gids Proportionaliteit) and the Procurement Regulation for Public Works 2012 
(Aanbestedingsreglement Werken 2012, ‘ARW 2012’), both of which set out legally binding guidelines. In conducting procurement operations 
contracting authorities must comply with the principle of proportionality. If they depart from any aspect of the Proportionality Guide they must 
give reasons for doing so. 
Yes;  

As regards the ERDF, these measures are described extensively in the improvement plan and the adjusted work instructions in connection with 
the interruption of payment. Some (minor) measures have also been taken with respect to the ESF. With regard to management verifications, 
more structured information for verification teams (e.g. Q&As for staff). Effectiveness of verifications: use of statistical random sampling for 
all measures (action C was added only later). What evidence is there that this has been effective? Especially the first and second line error rate: 
a recent new figure from the audit authority showing about 1.0 % gross for project audits carried out in 2015 on declarations made in 2014. 
Yes 

No;  

The regulations for the EMFF and the EAFRD expressly indicate when state aid may be involved: see for example Regulation 1305/2013. 
Measures within the scope of Article 42 of the TFEU do not involve state aid. There is no similar provision for the ESF or the ERDF. 
Yes;  

Where a section of a programme may comprise state aid, the management authority handling project applications must judge whether the 
application is contrary to the state aid rules. The Member States cannot correct the systemic flaw referred to in question 6.2. Regulations 

179

 
 
 
 
 
 
cannot be amended by the Member States. This does not change the fact that the responsible authorities have expertise in state aid. 

Q 7.1. 

The Ministerial order on Ministry of Economic Affairs European subsidies (Regeling Europese EZ-subsidies) includes a simplified 
cost calculation for eligible labour costs. No other system of calculation for labour costs may be used. The simplified labour cost 
calculation is promoted in the ERDF handbook and in the explanatory notes for recipients. 

POLAND 

Q 1.1. 

EAFRD: Yes 

EMFF: Yes 

ESF: Yes 

ERDF: Yes 

CF: Yes 

Q 1.2. 

For the purpose of measuring the effects of intervention under the operational programmes co-financed by the ERDF/CF/ESF, a 
raft of indicators applied at project level derived from the Common List of Key Indicators prepared by the Minister for Regional 
Development must be used. The list comprises the common indicators at European level set in the fund regulations and the key 
indicators set at national level. 

The  Managing  Authority  may  also  apply  additional  programme-specific  indicators  which  are  highly  detailed  with  a  view  to 
monitoring the effects of the operational programme as a whole. 

For  example,  in  the  case  of  the  ESF,  the  raft  of  measures  includes  about  80  indicators  for  monitoring  regional  operational 
programmes and 327 indicators for monitoring intervention by the national programme (Knowledge Education Development OP). 
at: 
A 

indicators 

available 

ERDF 

key 

and 

list 

CF 

the 

for 

of 

is 

180

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
http://www.mir.gov.pl/media/2274/wytyczne_nr_13_220415_zal_1.pdf 

As  regards  the  EAFRD,  Poland  plans  to  use  an  additional  indicator  ‘Number  of  beneficiaries  of  investments  to  prevent  the 
destruction  of  agricultural  production  potential’,  with  a  view  to  reporting  on  the  results  of  specific  objective  3B  (focus  area). 
Information  concerning  that  indicator  was  included  in  the  2014-20  RDP  in  Chapter  11  of  the  Indicator  Plan,  point  11.5. 
Programme-Specific Target and Output. 

It is also planned to use the additional national indicators set in Annex No 5 to the 2014-20 RDP. 

Q 1.3. 

Yes;  

Information on the choice of indicators, an estimation of their value and factors influencing the achievement of milestones and targets is set out 
in the annex to the operational programme. This Annex contains the information required by Article 4 of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 
215/2014.  

Under  the  2014-20  financial  perspective,  a  reporting  system  common  to  all  operational  programmes  has  been  created  in  Poland  which 
comprises  collection  of  data  on  individual  programmes,  in  particular  in  terms  of  financial  and  physical  indicators.  The  data  collated  in  the 
central  IT  system  designed  for  the  requirements  of  the  2014-20  financial  perspective  form  a  basis  for  reliable  and  accurate  reports.  The 
Managing Authorities will monitor achievement of the performance framework targets on an ongoing basis (including within the framework of 
national periodic reports) and will respond to developments that could impact achievement of targets.  

For example, using the IT system resources, we will be able to present comprehensive information on the implementation of the ESF in Poland 
including details of the participant structure (age, education, employment status, membership of special groups, disability, etc.), indicators (see 
above) and progress with financial implementation of the ESF. 

It should, however, be borne in mind that it will not be possible to summarise the impact of EU funds in the 2014-20 financial perspective until 
sufficient progress has been made - 2017 will be too early a stage to produce summary conclusions. 

As  regards  the  EAFRD,  it  should  be  possible  to  present  meaningful  data  in  the  mid-term  review  of  the  multiannual  financial  framework 
planned  for  2017  for  a  small  proportion  of  the  operations  carried  out  under  the  2014-20  RDP.  The  first  meaningful  data  on  the  impact  of 
operations and expenditure will be set out in the review of the performance framework for 2014-18. 

Q 2.2. 

Yes;  

Issues  relating  to  financial  engineering  instruments  are  discussed  at  regular  meetings  with  the  Managing  Authorities  of  operational 
programmes  for  2007-13,  including  as  regards  monitoring  and  reporting  within  the  FEI.  The  guidance  note  on  reporting  and  financial 
instruments  (EGESIF-150015-06/05/2015)  was  sent  to  all  Managing  Authorities  of  operational  programmes  for  2007-13  with  a  view  to 

181

 
 
 
Q 3.5. 

Q 3.6. 

implementing it. 

The findings indicated in box 7.6 were included in the audit findings of the Statement of Assurance for the 2014 financial year (DAS 2014) as 
regards EAFRD expenditure dated 24.03.2015 — ref. PF 6800. The case concerned non-compliance with the national public procurement 
rules in Measure 125. The Implementing Authority (in this case the provincial government) was responsible for carrying out checks on public 
procurement procedures in the 2007-13 RDP. The provincial government carries out checks on the compliance of contract award procedures 
with public procurement law and on evaluation procedures within the public procurement framework. The case was re-examined by the 
Implementing Authority. Poland presented its position on the preliminary audit findings indicating that it did not agree with the Court of 
Auditors’ findings. In spite of this, the Court’s findings were maintained in the inspection findings of 11 June 2015. 
In connection with similar irregularities detected in the implementation of the Śląskie ROP in the course of an analysis of improvements to the 
internal audit system,  as of 1 October 2014, MA Śląskie ROP introduced an additional comprehensive ex-post control for public procurement 
operations submitted by beneficiaries for refunds. In addition to audit activities, MA Śląskie ROP places particular emphasis on organising 
ongoing training and practical workshops for beneficiaries and MA staff on the application of the Public Procurement Act. 
As audits carried out by the Supreme Audit Office showed, public bodies had internal public procurement rules with varying levels of detail, 
which could impact on whether contracts were awarded in accordance with the rules. 
Very often, these rules did not provide for an obligation to carry out advisability studies or cost/benefit analyses of outsourcing services at the 
planning stage. Although public procurement plans had been drawn up in approximately 50% of the audited bodies, they were not always 
implemented properly, and in areas below the EU thresholds there were often no public procurement plans. 
Irregularities in public procurement procedures often resulted from a failure to fully identify outsourcing needs, failure to estimate the value of 
the contract with due diligence (which constituted an infringement of Article 32(1) of the Public Procurement Act of 29 January 2004), 
unjustified division of contracts pursuant to Article 6a of the Public Procurement Act and failure to comply with internal rules. 
In the 2014-20 RDP a schedule (‘taryfikator’) was introduced for public procurement procedures setting out the administrative penalties for 
infringements of the Public Procurement Act of 29 January 2004 (Journal of Laws 2013, item 907, as amended). The administrative penalties 
indicated in the schedule vary according to the type of irregularity/infringement of the Public Procurement Act. 
Remedial and preventive action inter alia in the public procurement field for the 2014-20 RDP has been taken/is planned. 
1. The Agency for Restructuring and Modernisation of Agriculture, in cooperation with the Implementing Authorities and the Managing 
Authority, analysed the most frequent errors in the processing of aid applications and payment claims. On the basis of that analysis, the 
Agency for Restructuring and Modernisation of Agriculture has developed training programmes targeted at specific groups of beneficiaries 
and training programmes for public and private advisory bodies covering public procurement issues in the case of measures where there is a 
requirement to carry out a public procurement procedure. 
2. The Agency for Restructuring and Modernisation of Agriculture, in cooperation with the Managing Authority, produced a guide for 
beneficiaries of RDP 2014-20 aid on how to avoid the most common errors which was published on the Agency’s website in October 2015.  
3. Implementing Authorities are required to deal with the errors observed within the context of public procurement in training programmes, 
seminars and workshops for beneficiaries and potential beneficiaries. Moreover, since 2015, the authorities implementing NRN measures 
under the Plan have been obliged to provide potential beneficiaries and beneficiaries of RDP 2014-20 with systemic training on public 
procurement in particular. 
4. The Agency for Restructuring and Modernisation of Agriculture, in cooperation with the Implementing Authorities and the Managing 

182

 
 
 
Authority, drew up a list of FAQ concerning the most common errors to help beneficiaries prepare applications. These FAQ were published on 
the websites of the Agency for Restructuring and Modernisation of Agriculture, the Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development, the 
Implementing Authorities and the regional secretariats of the NRN in the first half of 2015. 
Poland is also obliged to update the corrective action plan undertaken by the Agency for Restructuring and Modernisation of Agriculture by 
way of follow-up to national action plans. The national action plan contains information on corrective and preventive action on errors and error 
rates which will be used to monitor the impact of corrective and preventive action. This will help reduce the number of errors identified in the 
audits conducted by the European Commission or the European Court of Auditors, through the introduction of appropriate preventive and 
corrective action and monitoring of the effectiveness of this action. 
The last national corrective action plan was prepared by the Agency for Restructuring and Modernisation of Agriculture in September 2015; 
the fourth update of the plan (follow-up) is timetabled for April 2016. 
As indicated above, as of 1 October 2014, MA Śląskie ROP introduced an additional comprehensive ex-post check procedure for public 
procurement operations submitted by beneficiaries for refunds. In addition to audit activities, MA Śląskie ROP places particular emphasis on 
improving the awareness of beneficiaries and MA staff of application of the Public Procurement Act. It does this by organising training and 
practical workshops. 
The Supreme Audit Office has sent de lege ferenda proposals and systemic applications to the competent authorities concerning: 
1. the obligation for public finance sector bodies to draw up annual public procurement plans irrespective of the value of contracts; 
2. the eradication from the public procurement system of arrangements enabling public finance sector bodies to divide contracts and to award 
them without applying the rules and procedures laid down by the Public Procurement Act (e.g. Article 6a of the Act); 
3. the introduction of the rule that appeals are heard by the National Appeals Board (Krajowa Izba Odwoławcza) sitting in a panel of at least 
two persons; 
4. the amendment of Article 13 of the Public Procurement Act concerning prior information notices in such a way as to make publication of 
notices mandatory; 
5. the clarification in the Public Procurement Act of the provisions governing the appointment and work of tender committees by requiring the 
head of the Contracting Authority to divide tasks and responsibilities in relation to specific procedural actions between named committee 
members. 
1. In the case of projects implemented under the 2004-06 and 2007-13 financial perspectives, in the event of infringements of the national or 
EU public procurement rules, the institutions responsible for auditing projects and imposing financial corrections deemed the expenditure 
incurred by the beneficiaries wholly ineligible or imposed financial corrections on this expenditure in accordance with the following national 
document: Financial corrections for infringements of public procurement law connected with implementation of projects co-financed from EU 
funds (‘taryfikator’). This document served as a manual for the Managing Authorities or the bodies to which powers had been delegated and 
reflected, also in terms of the amounts of corrections applicable to specific categories of irregularity, the guidelines for the financial 
corrections to be applied  
for expenditure co-financed from the Structural Funds and Cohesion Fund in the event of non-compliance with the public procurement rules 
(COCOF 07/0037/03-PL), which applied until 19 December 2013, and Decision C (2013) 9527 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 procurement, which replaced them. With regard to cohesion policy projects financed 
under the 2014-20 financial perspective, it was decided to enshrine the ‘taryfikator’ in universally binding law, i.e. in a Regulation of the 

183

Q 4.1. 

 
 
 
Minister for Regional Development.  Legislative work is currently under way on the draft Regulation. The amounts of corrections provided for 
in the document are in line with the European Commission’s above-mentioned guidelines. 
2. In the event of an irregularity being detected which may result in a financial correction and, in particular, in the event of a breach of the 
public procurement rules, the Supreme Audit Office notifies the institution that concluded the agreement with the beneficiary, i.e. the 
Managing Authority or Intermediate Authority, with a view to carrying out an analysis of the irregularity to determine whether the expenditure 
in question is eligible for refunds from EU resources, pursuant to Article 62a of the Supreme Audit Office Act (Journal of Laws 2015, item 
1096). This is because in the event of findings suggesting that recovery may be necessary as a result of failure by the beneficiary to comply 
with its obligations under the grant agreement, the final decision on the amount of the correction lies with the above-mentioned institutions, 
which are responsible for imposing financial corrections. Under Article 62a(1) of the Supreme Audit Office Act, the President of the Supreme 
Audit Office may notify in writing the head of the higher authority or the competent national or regional government authority of comments, 
evaluations and conclusions relating to the audited activities set out in the post-audit report. Under Article 62a(2), the authorities referred to in 
Article 62a(1) have a period of not less than two weeks within which to inform the Supreme Audit Office of their position and the action taken 
or the reasons for inaction. 
Yes;  

The measures established by Poland to improve management and control systems largely reflect the changes introduced and implemented in 
this  area  by  the  European  Commission.  Following  the  introduction  of  a  mechanism  for  presenting  the  annual  accounts  accompanied  by  a 
management  declaration  and  an  annual  summary  of  final  audit  reports  and  checks,  an  audit  planning  process  was  incorporated  into  the 
accounting  year  in  Poland.  In  addition,  annual  audit  plans  for  the  2015-16  accounting  year  were  thoroughly  analysed  by  the  Partnership 
Agreement Coordinating Authority to ensure that programmes made provision for mechanisms ensuring the regularity of expenditure entered 
in the annual accounts. 
To ensure the introduction of instruments for effective verification activities in the new financial perspective, the Cohesion Policy Programme 
Implementation (2014-20 Financial Perspective) Act of 11 July 2014 made provision for Managing Authorities to carry out checks on previous 
documents  relating  to  public  procurement  procedures,  environmental  impact  assessments  and  awards  of  state  aid.  Previously  these  powers 
were enshrined in lower-ranking legislation. 
Moreover, in order to combat fraud and conflicts of interests effectively, Managing Authorities were required to draw up documents concern 
the fraud prevention mechanisms applied in their programmes. The main lines of the documents were set out in the guidelines of the Minister 
for Infrastructure and Development on the arrangements for monitoring implementation of operational programmes in 2014-20. 
In comparison with the previous programming period, verification activities will now be increased; in the case of projects not involving a call 
for tender, it will even be possible to carry out checks on the applicant (provided for in the implementing legislation), the purpose being to 
ensure that the prospective beneficiary has completed preparations for project implementation. 
Yes 

No 

Q 5.1. 

Q 6.1. 

Q 6.2. 

184

 
 
 
 
Q 6.3. 

Q 7.1. 

No; We have not identified any systemic issues or deficiencies on our part related to the state aid rules. 

The Guidelines on the eligibility of expenditure under the European Regional Development Fund, the European Social Fund and 
the Cohesion Fund for 2014-20 provide for the use of simplified methods for clearance of expenditure. Simplified methods are one 
of  the  possible  ways  of  clearing  expenditure.  However,  their  use  is  optional.  The  final  decision  on  this  matter  is  taken  by  each 
Managing Authority.  As the focal point of competence, the Partnership Agreement Coordinating Authority endeavours to spread 
good practice in the field by way of meetings and individual consultations. 

For  example,  the  Smart  Growth  2014-20  Operational  Programme  (ERDF)  introduced  the  possibility  of  applying  two  simplified 
flat-rate  clearance  methods,  i.e.  flat-rate  clearance  of  indirect  costs  (pursuant  to  Article  67(1)(d)  of  Regulation  (EU)  No 
1303/2013) and flat-rate clearance of costs (pursuant to Article 67(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) No 1303/2013). These methods are 
applied to measures supporting R&D projects and investments in R&D infrastructure. 

Detailed rules governing the application of these methods and the methodology for the simplified clearance of indirect costs under 
priority axes I and IV of the Smart Growth OP are laid down in the guidelines of the Minister for Infrastructure and Development 
of 28 August 2015 on the eligibility of expenditure under the Smart Growth 2014-20 Operational Programme.  

The Smart Growth OP makes provision for two flat rates: up to 17% of direct eligible costs, excluding subcontracting and cross-
financing costs, for R&D projects and up to 8% of direct eligible costs, excluding cross-financing costs, for investments in R&D 
infrastructure.  

Amounts covering the costs of one stage of the project or the costs of the entire project may be eligible for clearance by way of a 
lump sum, in which case the lump sum may not exceed the equivalent of €100 000 of the public contribution to the project. Flat-
rate clearance has not been taken up in any of the calls for tender organised to date. However, the method may be implemented if 
the application documents for the measure make provision to that effect. 

Poland is pleased to note a minor reduction in the error rate concerning payments from the EU budget (4.4%, as compared with 
4.5% in 2013). 

The fact that a stable overall error rate was maintained even though the 2014 budget was the second largest ever, with significant 
cumulation of cohesion policy expenditure from the 2007-13 programming period, gives cause for satisfaction. 

However, we note with concern the significant increase in the error rate under heading 1a - R&D (from 4% to 5.6%) and heading 4 
-  External  relations  (from  2.1%  to  2.7%),  which  can  only  partially  be  explained  by  the  increase  in  appropriations  under  those 

185

 
 
 
headings. 

Notwithstanding a minor increase in the error rate in the cohesion policy field, the trend in regional expenditure, which accounts 
for 80% of appropriations under those headings, is positive (a significant reduction). 

In addition, the annual error rate calculated by the Court of Auditors should be seen in the context of the multiannual character of 
EU intervention (including net financial corrections and recovered amounts). 

The corrective action taken by the Member States and the Commission had a major impact. According to the Court of Auditors, if 
this  action  had  not  been  taken  on  the  transaction  sample  tested  by  the  Court,  the  overall  estimated  error  rate  would  be  1.1  pp. 
higher (1.6 pp. in 2013), which translates into an amount of €1.6 billion approx. 

We would draw particular attention to the recommendation of the Court of Auditors that the Commission take measures to reduce 
the  backlog  of  outstanding  commitments  under  cohesion  policy,  including  faster  closure  of  the  2007-13  programmes.  In  some 
Member States (beneficiaries of cohesion policy), total EU funding arrears account for a significant percentage of annual public 
expenditure. 

We agree with the Court of Auditors on the need to improve indicators and to introduce uniform, comparable benchmarks for all 
EU budget expenditure (all budget headings managed by both the Member States and the Commission). 

PORTUGAL 

Q 1.1. 

EAFRD: Yes 

EMFF: Yes 

ESF: Yes 

ERDF: Yes 

CF: Yes 

186

 
 
 
 
 
Q 1.2. 

In addition to the use of common indicators is the fact that all operational programmes in the Cohesion Funds (ERDF, ESF and 
CF) have a set of result indicators defined for specific objectives as well as indicators for reaching investment priorities. 

For Operational Programmes with similar goals in the Portuguese programming period of 2014-2020, indicators to be used have 
been harmonised. Therefore, in addition to the list of common Community indicators is a list of harmonised national indicators. 

Q 1.3. 

Yes;  

The analysis of programme results is measured annually in the Annual Implementation Reports for Operational Programmes.  

At the same time, the Agency for Development and Cohesion is responsible for preparing the Annual European Fund Report. The aim of this 
report is to provide systematised information on the implementation of European Structural and Investment Funds (ESIFs), allocated under the 
Partnership  Agreement  established  between  Portugal  and  the  European  Union  for  the  programming  period  2014-2020  (Portugal  2020). 
Moreover, bearing in mind that termination of eligibility under the programming period 2007-2013 is at the end of 2015, information on the 
National Strategic Reference Framework (NSRF) will also be reported until it ends. 

Q 2.2. 

We consider that the specifications for the provision of information on the IEF submitted by the Commission to Member States for discussion 
at the EGESIF meeting held on 20 May 2015, have not in the majority of the situations identified, implications for the provision of information 
by  Portugal.  This  is  because  they  refer  to  the  clarification  of  items  already  incorporated  into  information  provided  on  every  Operational 
Programme in Annual Implementation Reports. 

It  should  be  further  noted  that  at  the  time  the  working  paper  was  submitted  by  the  Commission,  the  process  of  drawing  up  annual 
implementation reports for Operational Programmes was in some cases at the final stages. These reports are to be submitted to the respective 
monitoring committees for approval at the end of May and any possible adjustments arising from the Commission's proposal would not now 
be possible. 

Human errors resulting from poor interpretation of the regulatory framework, which is vast and complex. Nevertheless, it often becomes 
necessary to use professional judgement when evaluating the framing of specific situations. 
It was further stated that one of the shortcomings identified was the lack of information provided to beneficiaries on the rules of public 
procurement. 
When payment requests are submitted, the beneficiary is required to complete a public procurement check list. This includes the procedure 
implemented and the respective processing (procedure proposal, supplier consultation, specifications ...) 
During administrative checks, technical analysts are required to verify whether the beneficiary is the awarding entity in accordance with the 
national public procurement code and the Community directive and, should this be the case, verify that the procedure implemented is correct. 
Nevertheless, support tools exist to assist in highly detailed and explanatory management checks. This has contributed to the decrease in the 
frequency and expression of errors. Particular attention will be paid to this area in the creation of documents supporting management checks 
for the 2014-2020 programming period as well as for the closure process for the 2007-2013 programming period. 
Training and awareness-raising courses for technicians working in the field of public procurement have also been undertaken. These actions 

Q 3.7. 

Q 3.8. 

187

 
 
 
must be maintained as required. 
The use of electronic procedures through the www.base.gov.pt portal which Portugal has pioneered, has also significantly contributed to the 
strengthening of internal control and error reduction. This site provides much more information for both the awarding authority and for control 
and audit functions. 
Specifically through IFAP and with regard to the information deficit for beneficiaries on the rules of public procurement, corrective measures 
were as follows: 
• At the project approval stage, strengthening of the process to verify whether the beneficiary is the awarding authority in accordance with the 
public procurement code and, should this be the case, the beneficiary is informed that they are subject to the rules of public procurement; 
• When payment requests are formalised, technical analysts are required to verify whether the beneficiary is the awarding entity in accordance 
with the national public procurement code and the Community directive and, should this be the case, verify that the procedure implemented is 
correct. 
• Strengthening of information and disclosure to technical analysts and beneficiaries in relation to public procurement procedures that projects 
are required to follow. 
No. Quantification of non-compliance is provided for in the COCOF table (there is no national instrument to quantify non-compliance). 

Yes;  

Whenever serious problems are identified during audits, the national authorities immediately implement the procedures necessary to correct 
the situation. In certain situations, this has led to the implementation of action plans allowing the risk of material errors to be mitigated. 
In accordance with  established procedures, the  CA,  prior to the submission of payment requests to the  European Commission carries out  a 
series of checks. Whenever doubts exist as to the legality and regularity of expenditure to be certified, the sums in question are deducted as a 
precautionary measure until the issues are resolved. 
It should also be noted that with regard to errors encountered during checks on operations, in the last certification of every year, the CA has 
deducted  the  value  of  these  errors  as  a  precautionary  measure.  This  allows  the  Audit  Authority  in  its  Annual  Report  and  Opinion  to 
demonstrate to the Commission that the errors have been corrected as they have been removed from expenditure certification. 
Yes 

No 

Yes;  

- disclosure of relevant information by the managing authorities on operational programmes;  
- awareness and training actions on matters of State aid, 
- and strengthening of internal control systems, in particular, with regard to the process to designate management and certification authorities 
for the 2014-2020 programming period. 

188

Q 4.1. 

Q 5.1. 

Q 6.1. 

Q 6.2. 

Q 6.3. 

 
 
 
 
 
Q 7.1. 

At the Agency for Development and Cohesion (AD&C), a Simplification Centre has been set up which aims to inform the MAs  
on relevant aspects in this area in order to promote the extensive use of simplified cost options in the different Cohesion Funds 
(ERDF,  ESF  and  Cohesion  Fund).  The  main  goal  of  the  ongoing  work  at  the  Simplification  Centre  consists  of  implementing 
simplified  cost  options  in  the  largest  possible  number  of  projects  supported  by  the  Cohesion  Fund.  In  liaison  with  the 
MAs/Intermediate  Bodies  and  the  National  Audit  Authority,  preparatory  work  is  underway  to  prepare  proposals  for  simplified 
costs in different types of operation, particularly with regard to competitiveness and innovation, mainly supported by the ERDF. 

ROMANIA 

Q 1.1. 

EAFRD: Yes 

EMFF: Yes 

ESF: Yes 

ERDF: Yes 

CF: Yes 

Q 1.2. 

In accordance with Article 27(4), Article 96(2)(b)(i) and (iv) and point (c)(ii) and (iv) of Regulation (EU)  

No 1303/2013, for the operational programmes financed under the cohesion policy, programme-specific result indicators were also 
used, in accordance with the Annex. 

MA-NRDP: Alternative indicators for the new programming period as follows: 

P3-Promoting  food  chain  organisation,  including  processing  and  marketing  of  agricultural  products,  animal  welfare  and  risk 
management in agriculture: (1) number of holdings supported in the area of animal welfare and (2) number of operations supported 

189

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
under sub-measure 4.2 Support for investments in agricultural product processing/marketing, 

P4  –  Restoring,  preserving  and  enhancing  ecosystems  in  agriculture  and  forestry:  (3)  Agricultural  land  under  management 
contracts  contributing  to  biodiversity  (focus  area  4A)  +  improving  water  management  (focus  area  4B)  +  improving  soil 
management and/or preventing soil erosion + agricultural land covered by contracts of payments for areas facing natural or other 
specific constraints (focus area 4C), 

P5  -    Promoting  efficient  use  of  resources  and  supporting  the  shift  towards  a  low  carbon  and  climate  resilient  economy  in 
agriculture, food and forestry sectors: (4) The area (ha) concerned by investments for saving water — key implementation step and 
(5) number of operations supported under sub-measure 4.1 Investments in agricultural holdings, 

P6 - Promoting social inclusion, poverty reduction and economic development in rural areas.  (6) Number of contracted operations 
to improve basic services and infrastructure in rural areas — key implementation step. 

Q 1.3. 

Yes;  

MA-OPF 

In accordance with the provisions in Annex V of Regulation (EC) No 1242/2014 laying down, pursuant to Regulation (EU) No 508/2014 of 
the European Parliament and of the Council on the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund, the rules on the presentation of relevant cumulative 
data on operations, data will be presented on the implementation of projects as follows: 

Code of the implementation data/Possible value and type of value for: 

Chapter I: Sustainable development of fisheries  

Chapter II: Sustainable development of aquaculture  

Chapter IV: Marketing and processing related measures  

Chapter V: Compensation for additional costs in outermost regions for fishery and aquaculture products   

Chapter VI: Accompanying measures for the Common Fisheries Policy under shared management  

Chapter VII: Technical assistance at the initiative of the Member States  

190

 
 
 
Chapter VIII: Fostering the implementation of the Integrated Maritime Policy  

MEF - DG APE 

General  ex-ante  conditionality  ‘7.  Statistical  systems  and  result  indicators’  will  be  met  by  Romania  by  31  December  2015.  Procedures  for 
collecting and aggregating statistical data were established in all programmes, on the basis of guidelines for the monitoring of financial and 
physical indicators.  

No;  

MA-NRDP 

Late approval of the programme and the short implementation period will lead to a reduced number of projects implemented/completed that 
could be used as basis for collecting indicators and carrying out the assessment scheduled for 2017. 

Q 2.2. 

Yes;  

MA-NRDP:  Although  guidance  note  EGESIF-150015-06/05/2015  concerns  the  reporting  on  financial  instruments  implemented  under  the 
ERDF and SF, MA NRDP aims at improving the quality of the reports on the financial instruments under the NRDP, in particular following 
the conclusions of the audit missions carried out for this purpose.  

In this respect, the system of indicators will be defined on the basis of SMART criteria (specific, measurable, achievable, relevant and timed 
objectives), and the monitoring process will use lessons learnt and examples of good practice from the previous programming periods. 

MEF  -  DG  APE:  Romania  implemented  JEREMIE  financial  instrument  in  2007-2013,  for  which  reports  were  drawn  up  by  the  European 
Investment Fund as a Fund of Funds. 

For financial period 2014-2020, the financial instruments were established on the basis of the needs identified ex-ante for various programmes, 
and the reports are to be made by the managing authorities concerned. The Ministry of European Funds, which will act as coordinator for the 
implementation of the ESIF, will provide uniform coordination of the reporting for the financial instruments, on the basis of Regulation (EU) 
No 821/2014. 

As a result of the checks performed by the Audit Authority some situations similar to those presented in the European Court of Auditors report 
in box 7.6 were found. Such situations occurred due to weaknesses in the internal control system at the level of the institutions responsible for 
the verification of public procurement, in the sense that certain controls put into place have not been effective enough to detect all deviations 
from the existing legislative and procedural framework or certain procedural provisions were not sufficient and appropriate, so as to remove all 
the shortcomings in the procurements conducted by the fund beneficiaries. -AA 
MEF - DCSM - BCMAP: The internal control systems in place in the area of public procurement at beneficiary level are fragmented, partly 
redundant and focus more on formal aspects related to process regularity, without assessing quality aspects objectively. 
Typically, the internal control at the level of fund beneficiaries concerns the legality of the budgetary aspects, without taking into account any 

191

Q 3.5. 

 
 
 
Q 3.6. 

Q 3.7. 

Q 3.8. 

strategic dimension such as budget allocations and prioritisation of projects or the requirements in the tender documentation. 
MEF - DCSM - BCMAP: 
The national strategy for public procurement for the period 2015-2020 provides for actions to ensure the regularity and quality of the public 
procurement process. One of the measures for achieving this objective was found to be the development and the strengthening of the internal 
control at the contracting authorities through: adaptation of the internal control standards in the field of procurement, the issuance of 
guidelines/guidance on the internal control system, streamlining the preventive financial control linked to public procurement, training 
programmes and training for personnel exercising financial control in public procurement. 
Internal control shall include at least the following stages: preparation of procurement, the drafting of tender documents, the award procedure, 
implementation of the contract, being organised so as to allow an external control focused on substantive issues. The development of this type 
of internal control would significantly reduce, from an early stage, the risk of irregularities and errors and would ensure the achievement of the 
objective of the contracting authorities to get the best value for money. 
The internal control system will also include a policy document on the conflict of interest.  
AA: 
Further to finding such deficiencies, the Audit Authority recommended, depending on the seriousness of the deficiencies found, financial 
corrections and strengthened controls where certain deficiencies were found.  In certain situations, the audited entities have developed action 
plans including measures involving re-verification of procurement procedures and closer monitoring of the procurement process at the level of 
the beneficiaries of funds. 
The document checks carried out by the Certification Body on Paying Agency’s assessment on the public procurements carried out by the 
EAFRD beneficiaries have highlighted the need to strengthen control in this area. The system deficiencies found were broadly similar to those 
reported in previous years. It was recommended to the Agency for the Financing of Rural Investments (AFIR) to ensure the setting up of an 
appropriate and unitary system for permanent monitoring of the recommendations made in relation with the improvement of the working 
procedures and with the advanced training of the employees of the Agency so as to reduce the cases of non-compliance related to the 
procurement process 
MEF - DCSM - BCMAP 
The internal control systems in place in the area of public procurement at beneficiary level are fragmented, partly redundant and focus more on 
formal aspects related to process regularity, without assessing quality aspects objectively. 
Typically, the internal control at the level of fund beneficiaries concerns the legality of the budgetary aspects, without taking into account any 
strategic dimension such as budget allocations and prioritisation of projects or the requirements in the tender documentation. 
For the reported shortcomings, AFIR ordered, in general, measures of re-verification of the projects concerned, which led in some cases to 
establishing ineligible expenditure and launching related recovery procedures. 
MEF - DCSM - BCMAP: 
The national strategy for public procurement for the period 2015-2020 provides for actions to ensure the regularity and quality of the public 
procurement process. One of the measures for achieving this objective was found to be the development and the strengthening of the internal 
control at the contracting authorities through: adaptation of the internal control standards in the field of procurement, the issuance of 
guidelines/guidance on the internal control system, streamlining the preventive financial control linked to public procurement, training 
programmes and training for personnel exercising financial control in public procurement. 
Internal control shall include at least the following stages: preparation of procurement, the drafting of tender documents, the award procedure, 

192

 
 
 
Q 4.1. 

Q 5.1. 

implementation of the contract, being organised so as to allow an external control focused on substantive issues. The development of this type 
of internal control would significantly reduce, from an early stage, the risk of irregularities and errors and would ensure the achievement of the 
objective of the contracting authorities to get the best value for money. 
The internal control system will also include a policy document on the conflict of interest. 
MEF - DCSM - BCMAP: 
National legislation in the field of public procurement sets out, in addition to those referred to by the Court, the sanctioning of the following 
violations of legal provisions: 
• The use of other qualification and selection criteria or award criteria than those laid down by law;  
• The use of the qualification and selection criteria as tender assessment factors; 
• Changing the award criterion laid down in the documentation/notice during a tender procedure; 
• Incorrect application in the selection and/or assessment process of the criteria set out in the tender documentation; 
• The application of assessment factors that do not reflect the benefits to the contracting authority. 
In addition, the national legislation on preventing, detecting and penalising irregularities in the granting and use of European funds and/or 
related national public funds lays down the following deviations from the compliance with the rules on public procurement: 
• The procurement of unforeseen additional/supplementary works or services, leading to exceeding the percentage from the initial contract 
value, set as limit by the national and Community legislation on public procurement; 
• Qualification and selection criteria, and assessment factors undeclared in the tender documents or in the tender notice; 
• Insufficient or discriminatory definition of the contract object; 
• Negotiation during the award procedure. 
AA: 
Yes, Romania has national legislation regulating these matters (Government Emergency Order No 66/2011 on preventing, detecting and 
penalising irregularities in the granting and use of European funds and/or related national public funds), a legislative act which is harmonised 
with European Commission Decision No (21031) 9527 of 19 December 2013 and which ensures uniform approach with regard to the 
applicable financial corrections/decreases applicable to expenditure related to projects financed from European funds and/or related national 
public funds in case of non-compliance with the rules on public procurement. This legislation is applied to the structural and cohesion funds, 
by both the Managing Authorities and the Audit Authority. In projects financed from the EAFRD, AFIR has its own working procedures for 
the verification of the public procurement process carried out by the beneficiaries, which are in accordance with the applicable national law. 
Yes;  

MA SOP Environment: 
For  example,  concerning  the  specific  activity  related  to  checking  the  compliance  of  the  public  procurement  procedures  of  MA  SOP 
Environment, changes were applied to the procedure check-lists with a view to paying increased attention to the following aspects: changes to 
the information in the tender notice through clarifications/errata, relevance and proportionality of the qualification and selection criteria in the 
procurement  data  sheet,  compliance  of  the  successful  tenderer  with  the  qualification  and  selection  criteria,  complaints  and  claims  during  a 
public procurement procedure, as well as reasons for rejecting tenderers.  
The tendering-contracting operational procedure POLC — 121 for DCVAP was supplemented with provisions for classifying contracts into 
risk  categories.    With  a  view  to  classifying  a  contract  in  one  of  the  risk  categories,  risk  factors  designed  to  cover  the  most  significant 

193

 
 
 
 
procurement related issues/sensitive points are used, such as: 
- History of the contracting authority in the field - audit authority reports, financial corrections already implemented, ANRMAP reports, 
- The number of participants in the procedure, 
- The percentage of tenders considered unacceptable and/or non-compliant in the total tenders submitted, 
- Claims recorded in the course of the procedure, etc. 
In cases where, after filling in the Risk Category Data Sheet, the final score obtained is higher than 2, the contract presents a high risk and will 
be selected for verification, based on the additional check list of the public procurement procedure, and   
Annex 05a POLC 121 will be thus inserted. 
It thus results that, based on the risk methodology, the projects/their beneficiaries are classified in risk categories, and the procedures for public 
procurement related to their contracts are checked accordingly. 
In addition, in order to improve the checks at the level of MA SOP Environment, the operational procedures were updated in June 2015, by 
inclusion  of  the  recommendations  received  further  to  the  audit  missions  carried  out  by  the  national  competent  authorities  and  by  the  EC. 
Moreover, the Managing Authority for SOP Environment has also issued internal instructions and instructions to the beneficiaries of projects 
financed under SOP Environment, intended to clarify and improve the working method. 
MA SOPIEC: 
Further to the recommendations of the EC, MA SOP IEC implemented a series of preventive and corrective measures, such as: re-checks of 
the public procurement contracts awarded, re-checks of the classification as SME, re-checks on the conflict of interest. 
AFIR: 
• In-depth re-checks (according to standard sheets) of the eligibility and selection criteria and of the conditions to create artificial conditions 
before payment; 
• Drawing up a guide on the prevention of irregularities published on AFIR website. 
MDRAP: 
In  the  case  of  the  Romania-Bulgaria  Cross  Border  Cooperation  Programme  2007-2013,  external  expertise  was  used  for  the  verification  of 
public procurement of Bulgarian partners. 
The  managing  authority  for  the  Romania-Bulgaria  Cross  Border  Cooperation  Programme  2007-2013  has  taken  the  following  measures  to 
increase absorption: 
- The programme has achieved over-contracting above the available allocation (EUR 35.6 million); 
- Legislation has been amended to allow any type of expenditure until 2 months after the completion of the project;  
    — reporting was simplified, reports are submitted in electronic format.  
At the Managing Authority for the Regional Operational Programme, the Unit for verification of public procurements and conflict of interest 
was established as of 1 August 2012 in accordance with Instruction No 88 of 27 July 2012. Since September 2014, the procurement officers at 
SVAPCI also check the procurement procedures carried out for awarding services, supply or works contracts awarded by the following types 
of beneficiaries: 
• Chambers of Commerce (CC), business associations (AS), commercial companies or cooperatives (SC); 
• Micro enterprise (MI)/religious entities (UC), non-governmental organisations (NGOs) 
• Small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs).  
Checks were intended to find out: 

194

 
 
 
Q 6.1. 

Q 6.2. 

Q 6.3. 

If purchases are set out in the financing application (the nature of the expenditure and the quantities specified in the grant application); 
If  purchases  comply  with  the  procedural  and  legislative  provisions  on  the  award  procedures  applicable  to  private  beneficiaries  (Order  No 
1050/2012, Order 1120/2013) or with the provisions in the annex ‘Instructions on the public procurements’ to the financing contract. 
If,  following  verification  of  a  procurement  procedure  by  SVAPCI  procurement  officers,  a  breach  of  the  procurement  law  was  found  in 
accordance with Article 6 of GEO 66/2011, expenditure that does not comply with the legality, correctness and compliance conditions laid 
down in the national and Community legislation in force was fully or partially excluded from the refund/payment of expenditure made and 
declared by beneficiaries. 
Yes;  

AA: 
As regards Structural and Cohesion Funds, the Audit Authority uses a check list that contains questions on State aid, which is used by the 
auditors during the audit missions. Where deficiencies are found, recommendations are made to remedy to these shortcomings and to recover 
the amounts paid without compliance with the legal rules.  
MEF IB/MA SOPIEC: checks the compliance of the projects with the rules in the area of State aid under the on-the-spot checks carried out 
No;  

AA: Up to now, the deficiencies found have been isolated, not systemic. 
Yes;  

MA-NRDP: 
The MARD, as administrator of State aid schemes financed from EAFRD (not as regulator in the area of State aid), considers that the 
implementation of the ex-ante conditionalities on State aid included in the Partnership Agreement for 2014-2020 will lead to an improvement 
in this area. In this regard, the introduction of the General Register of State Aid in Romania (RegAS) will ensure better monitoring and control 
of State aid from national funds and from structural instruments.  

AA: 
In 2014-2015, a number of 63 auditors of the Audit Authority were trained on the State aid issue (general principles, concepts, types of 
measures of State aid, applicable national and Community procedure, monitoring, controlling and reporting State aid).  
Moreover, the State Aid Register — RegAS computer application has been developed in Romania, which will be operated by the Competition 
Council.  The computer application that will enter into operation on 1 January 2016 allows, among others, verification of the eligibility of the 
beneficiaries before the State aid or de minimis aid is granted. As Audit Authority, our institution is a user of the IT application mentioned 
above, which will be a useful tool in the detection of possible cases of infringement of the State aid rules. 
MEF 

Q 7.1. 

MEF - DG APE: 

Until 30 November 2015, for two ERDF programmes (ROP and OPTA), for technical assistance activities, the application of a flat 

195

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
rate of up to 15 % of eligible direct staff costs is envisaged in accordance with Article 68(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) No 1303/2013. 

MDRAP: 

Under Interreg Programme V-A Romania-Bulgaria, simplified costs will be used for staff costs and administrative costs (optional 
for infrastructure). 

Pursuant  to  Articles  67  and  68  of  Regulation  (EU)  No  1303/2013,  Article  14(2)  to  (4)  of  Regulation  (EU)  No  1304/2013  and 
Article  19  of  Regulation  (EU)  No  1299/2013,  under  ROP  2014-2020,  the  Managing  Authority  for  the  Regional  Operational 
Programme  will  use  the  simplified  option  of  the  flat-rate  financing  of  indirect/administrative  costs  incurred  at  the  Intermediate 
Bodies, which are financed under Priority Axis 12 — Technical Assistance, consisting of 15 % of the eligible costs (the option 
described in Article 68(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) No 1303/2013).  

The  national  rules  deal  with  the  concrete  means  to  implement  the  provisions  in  the  above-mentioned  EU  Regulations  in 
Government  Decision  No  399/2015  on  eligibility  rules  for  expenditure  incurred  during  operations  financed  from  the  European 
Regional Development Fund, the European Social Fund and the Cohesion Fund for 2014-2020. 

Thus, Article 5 of the Decision provides for the eligibility of costs in the forms referred to in Article 67(1)(b) to (d) of Regulation 
(EU) No 1303 under the conditions set out in Article 67(3) and (4) of the same Regulation, according to the method of calculation 
and  the  conditions  laid  down  by  joint  order  of  the  Minister  for  European  Funds  and,  where  appropriate,  of  the  minister 
coordinating the Managing Authority, with the approval of the Minister for Public Finance, in accordance with the requirements in 
Article 67(5) of Regulation (EU) No 1303/2013. Pursuant to Article 67(1)(d) of Regulation (EU) No 1303/2013, the joint order 
will detail the list of expenses included in the direct costs, and in the direct staff costs. 

As regards the method for setting the flat rate to 15 % of the eligible staff costs in ROP 2014-2020, for the Intermediate Bodies, 
the method described in Article 67(5)(a)(ii) and the verifiable historical data on individual beneficiaries were taken into account. 

SLOVAKIA 

Q 1.1. 

EAFRD: Yes 

EMFF: Yes 

196

 
 
 
 
 
ESF: Yes 

ERDF: Yes 

CF: Yes 

Q 1.2. 

Response  by  the  central  coordination  body:  indicators  covering  the  removal  of  the  environmental  burden;  indicators  of  SME 
support  in  research,  development  and  innovation;  indicators  covering  inclusive  education,  increased  literacy  and  support  for 
lifelong learning; indicators covering support for community-style social service facilities. 

Q 1.3. 

Yes;  

Response by the central coordination body: the ratio of sites that have undergone remediation to the total number of sites where environmental 
burdens  have  been  recorded  in  Slovakia;  the  proportion  of  SMEs  engaging  in  research,  development  and  innovation;  the  number  of 
participants  who  have  taken  part  in  activities  to  improve  skills  and  literacy;  the  proportion  of  supported  schools  applying  an  inclusive 
education model; the number of children from marginalised Roma communities who have spent at least one year in supported nursery schools 
involved in activities geared towards promoting inclusive education; the ratio of children in children’s homes who receive community-based 
care, relative to the total number of children in children’s homes. 

Q 2.2. 

Yes;  

The Ministry of Economy of the Slovak Republic, as the Managing Authority for the Operational Programme Competitiveness and Economic 
Growth, in collaboration with the European Investment Fund (managing the JEREMIE holding fund in Slovakia), adapted the form used to 
report  financial  instruments  implemented  under  the  Operational  Programme  in  the  2014  Annual  Report  in  accordance  with  the  European 
Commission’s requirements. 

The Ministry of Finance is responsible for reporting on financial instruments in Slovakia. The Ministry of Education, Science, Research and 
Sport meets all requirements in this area to the requisite quality, in the structure and by the deadlines imposed by the Ministry of Finance. The 
Ministry  of  Education,  Science,  Research  and  Sport  did  not  register  any  shortcomings  or  risks  associated  with  the  quality  of  information 
reported to the responsible authority during 2014. The Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development does its utmost to ensure that reports on 
financial instruments are consistent with the requisite quality, structure and deadlines imposed by the Ministry of Finance. 

Q 4.1. 

Response by the central coordination body: As far as the determination of financial corrections or deficiencies in public procurement is 
concerned, the central coordination body has issued a guidance note on determining the level of the refund of any contribution granted, or any 
part thereof, if public procurement rules and procedures are infringed. Guidance Note 11 applies to the 2007-2013 programming period, while 
Guidance Note 5 applies to the new 2014-2020 programming period. Both of these documents transpose Commission Decision of 19 
December 2013, C(2013) 9527 final – Commission Decision 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 

197

 
 
 
on public procurement. This guidance note sets out the different types of most common and most serious infringements of public procurement 
rules and procedures that have had or could have an impact on the result of procurement; it determines the percentage of the rate of financial 
corrections that the competent managing authorities should have applied in response to the identification of such deficiencies.  
The central coordination body has issued a guidance note to assess conflicts of interest in public procurement. The aim of this document is to 
lay down ground rules that must be followed by managing authorities responsible for the implementation of operational programmes when 
identifying and assessing conflicts of interest in public procurement, which are one of the most serious possible deficiencies capable of 
distorting fair competition.   
The ESIF management system for the 2014-2020 programming period, within the framework of administrative checks on public procurement, 
introduced the concept of a compulsory initial ex ante check for all above-the-threshold contracts and below-the-threshold contracts awarded 
via the electronic marketplace (from a specific estimated value of the contract upwards), i.e. checks on a selected part of the documentation on 
the public procurement under preparation (e.g. the draft contract notice, the draft tender documents, etc.), ahead of the announcement of the 
contracting procedure with a view to eliminating errors and shortcomings in the draft documentation of the public procurement, thereby 
reducing the risk of an infringement of public procurement rules and procedures. On the basis of cooperation agreements between managing 
authorities and the Office for Public Procurement, there was an increase in the number of checks covered by the Office’s administrative 
capacities; managing authorities will also have the opportunity to seek – from the Office – personal consultations, opinions on partial problems 
in public procurement, and cooperation in the evaluation of the audit findings of the European Commission or the European Court of Auditors. 
In matters relating to the safeguarding of competition, cooperation between the managing authorities and the Antimonopoly Office was 
reinforced. Under a cooperation agreement, managing authorities will have the opportunity to apply to the Office in writing for a consultation 
or to file suspected infringements of the law on the protection of competition (in particular cartel agreements in public procurement) with the 
Office. 
Yes;  

Response  by  the  central  coordination  body:  On  20  November  2014,  the  Slovak  Government  passed  a  resolution  adopting  the  ESIF 
Management  System  for  the  2014-2020  programming  period.  In  public  procurement  checks,  this  encompasses  the  following  measures  to 
improve management verifications and to enhance the effectiveness of the checks carried out before certifying expenditure to the Commission: 
- the introduction of the concept of a compulsory initial ex ante check for all above-the-threshold contracts and below-the-threshold contracts 
awarded  via  the  electronic  marketplace  (from  a  specific  estimated  value  of  the  contract  upwards),  i.e.  checks  on  a  selected  part  of  the 
documentation  on  the  public  procurement  under  preparation  (e.g.  the  draft  contract  notice,  the  draft  tender  documents,  documents 
demonstrating how the estimated value of the contract was determined, etc.), ahead of the announcement of the contracting procedure; 
- introduction of the concept of risk analysis, the outcome of which forms a basis for a decision on whether the Office for Public Procurement 
is to carry out a mandatory check on the public procurement concerned. This encompasses administrative checks before and after the contract 
with the successful tenderer has been signed. 
-  closer  cooperation  between  Managing  Authority’s  and  the  Office  for  Public  Procurement  under  cooperation  agreements:  there  will  be  an 
increase in the number of public procurement procedures object to checks by the Office, the opportunity for managing authorities to seek – 
from the Office – personal consultations, opinions on partial problems in public procurement, and cooperation in the evaluation of the audit 
findings of the Commission or the Court of Auditors.  
- closer  cooperation between the  managing authorities and the Antimonopoly Office in  matters relating to the safeguarding of competition: 

198

Q 5.1. 

 
 
 
 
Q 6.1. 

Q 6.2. 

Q 6.3. 

under a cooperation agreement, managing authorities will have the opportunity to apply to the Office in writing for a consultation or to file 
suspected infringements of the law on the protection of competition (in particular cartel agreements in public procurement) with the Office. 
- the opportunity to apply to the Office for Public Procurement for a check on an above-the-threshold contract if only one or two bids have 
been submitted. 
- the tightening of rules on the award of low-value contracts above EUR 5 000 in order to enhance transparency: the obligation to publish an 
invitation to tender on the beneficiary’s website, the obligation to invite at least five selected candidates to tender. 
-  the  publication  of  the  central  coordination  body’s  Guidance  Note  13  (2014-2020  programming  period)  on  the  assessment  of  conflicts  of 
interest in public procurement. 
Other measures to improve management verifications and to enhance the effectiveness of checks: 
-  the  publication  of  the  central  coordination  body’s  Guidance  Note  6  (2014-2020  programming  period)  on  eligibility  rules  for  the  most 
common expenditure groups, to establish a coherent approach to assessing the eligibility of some of the most common expenditure groups that 
are to ensure the uniform application of eligibility rules under all operational programmes. 
-  the  publication  of  the  central  coordination  body’s  Guidance  Note  18  (2014-2020  programming  period)  on  the  verification  of  the  cost-
effectiveness of expenditure, aimed at formulating underlying considerations, recommendations and procedures for the process of assessing 
the principle of the cost-effectiveness of project expenditure and/or grant applications. 
Yes 

Yes;  

Response by the audit authority: Failure to meet the deadline for notifying the granting of de minimis aid by the scheme operator. Failure to 
designate responsibility for notifying the granting of aid by the scheme operator. 
Response by the certifying authority: Failure to assess State aid for an undertaking within the group of undertakings, taking account of their 
interconnection. Failure to assess State aid for a specific applicant in the grant evaluation process, but only for the invitation as a whole. 
Yes;  

Response by the audit authority: The auditors’ recommendation in response to the deficiencies identified in the realm of State aid was to 
ensure the establishment of procedure with a precise and detailed designation of the sequence of steps, from the assignment of the task to a 
specific internal MA/IB service (the aid scheme operator) through to the completion thereof, with an indication of the position of the MA/IB 
employee responsible for carrying out the task arising from the obligation to notify the Ministry of Finance of the granting of de minimis aid 
by the set deadlines. 
Response by the central coordination body: On 20 November 2014, the Slovak Government passed a resolution adopting the ESIF 
Management System for the 2014-2020 programming period. Section 3.6, regulating State aid issues, is based on Articles 106 to 109 of the 
Treaty on the Functioning of the EU, national legislation (Act No 231/1999 on State aid), the case-law of the European Court of Justice and 
the Commission’s decision-making practice. This part of the management system is a State aid concept defining services of general economic 
interest, de minimis aid and the State aid test. A model State aid test has been drawn up by the central coordination body. 

199

 
 
 
 
 
Q 7.1. 

ESF: The Operational Programme Human Resources MA plans to use the following simplifications in particular in the 2014-2020 
programming period: 

-  The  application  of  a  flat  rate  of  indirect  expenditure,  as  set  forth  in  Article  68(1)(a)  of  Regulation  (EU)  No  1303/2013  of  the 
European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council,  to  national  projects dedicated  to  active  labour  market  measures  under  the  Operational 
Programme Human Resources; 

-  The  application  of  a  standard  scale  of  unit  costs,  as  set  forth  in  Articles  67  and  68  of  Regulation  (EU)  No  1303/2013  of  the 
European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council,  under  the  Operational  Programme  Human  Resources  within  the  scope  of  the  National 
Project ‘Care service support’; 

-  The  application  of  a  standard  scale  of  unit  costs,  as  set  forth  in  Articles  67  and  68  of  Regulation  (EU)  No  1303/2013  of  the 
European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council,  under  the  Operational  Programme  Human  Resources  within  the  scope  of  the  National 
Project ‘Social field work in municipalities I’; 

-  The  application  of  a  standard  scale  of  unit  costs,  as  set  forth  in  Articles  67  and  68  of  Regulation  (EU)  No  1303/2013  of  the 
European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council,  under  the  Operational  Programme  Human  Resources  in  the  2014-2020  programming 
period within the scope of the National Project ‘Support for the development of social work in clients’ family settings in the field 
of social affairs and family’; 

-  The  application  of  a  standard  scale  of  unit  costs,  as  set  forth  in  Articles  67  and  68  of  Regulation  (EU)  No  1303/2013  of  the 
European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council,  under  the  Operational  Programme  Human  Resources  in  the  2014-2020  programming 
period within the scope of the National Project ‘Support of selected crisis intervention social services at community level’; 

-  The  application  of  a  standard  scale  of  unit  costs,  as  set  forth  in  Articles  67  and  68  of  Regulation  (EU)  No  1303/2013  of  the 
European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council,  under  the  Operational  Programme  Human  Resources  in  the  2014-2020  programming 
period within the scope of the National Project ‘Support for the deinstitutionalisation of foster care’. 

In the 2014-2020 programming period, under the Education priority axis, the Ministry of Education, Science, Research and Sport 
will  apply  standard  scales  of  unit  costs,  as  set  forth  in  Articles  67  and  68  of  Regulation  (EU)  No  1303/2013  of  the  European 
Parliament and of the Council, in national and demand-side projects, as well as a 15 % flat rate for indirect expenditure, as set forth 
in Article 68(1b) of Regulation (EU) No 1303/2013. This will be applied via a delegated act in accordance with Article 14(1) of 
Regulation (EU) No 1304/2013 on the European Social Fund. At the Commission’s request, the Ministry is planning to apply a 50 
% allocation under the Education priority axis of the Operational Programme Human Resources via simplified reporting. 

200

 
 
 
The  Ministry  is  also  considering  the  application  of  a  flat  rate  of  15  %  of  eligible  direct  staff  costs  and  has  not  ruled  out  the 
possibility of applying certain outputs of price maps in the form of standard scales of unit costs in the future.   

ERDF: Operational Programme Human Resources MA: The introduction of simplified cost reporting is not being considered for 
Priority Axis 6, which is ERDF-financed. This priority axis covers investment projects where the main budget line is construction 
works, the amount of which is tied to benchmarks. Other budget lines (equipment, building supervision, supporting activities) are 
tied, on a percentage basis, to the value of construction works or the value of the project. There are currently no plans to introduce 
simplified cost reporting in the form of, for example, flat-rate expenditure. 

SLOVENIA 

Q 1.1. 

EAFRD: Yes 

EMFF: Yes 

ESF: Yes 

ERDF: Yes 

CF: Yes; 

Ministry of Economic Development and Technology (MGRT): In 2007-2013/15 the MGRT has carried out primarily the ERDF 
and in part also the ESF, and could therefore confirm that we are using the common indicators as set out in the OP SRDP and the 
OP HRD 2007-2013. 

Q 1.2. 

Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Food (MKGP): 

In  the  rural  development  programme  of  the  Republic  of  Slovenia  2014-2020  (RDP),  the  Ministry  of  Agriculture,  Forestry  and 
Food  selected  5  (5)  of  the  indicators  set  out  in  the  performance  framework  proposed  by  the  Commission  (Section  7  RDP 

201

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Description of the performance framework) and the five (5) alternative or additional performance indicators.  

EC  performance  framework  indicators:  Total  public  expenditure  for  priority  2,  3,  4  and  6  and  the  population  covered  by  LAG 
(focus  area  6B),  Commission  additional  performance  indicators:  number  of  agricultural  holdings  with  RDP  support  for 
investments  in  restructuring  or  modernisation  (2A),  number  of  operations  supported  in  the  processing,  marketing  and/or 
development  of  agricultural  products  (3A),  agricultural  land  supported  under  measure  M  11  (ha)  (4ABC),  agricultural  land 
supported under measure M 13 (ha) (4ABC) and number of operations supported under the investment in forestry technologies and 
in processing, in mobilising and in marketing of forest products (6A). 

Q 1.3. 

Yes;  

Government Office for Development and European Cohesion Policy (SVRK): We believe that we can provide useful data, which however will 
primarily be based on outcome indicators, where the results will not be as fast. The performance framework is also set up this way. 

Ministry of Economic Development and Technology (MGRT): At the MGRT, with regard to the instruments that we implemented in 2007-
2013, on the basis of the instructions of the managing authority we will be able to provide the statistics i.e. achievement of the indicators which 
we listed and monitored for the individual interventions. 

Q 2.2. 

Yes;  

Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Food (MKGP): 

Instructions  for  reporting  on  financial  instruments  (reference:  EGESIF-150015  –  6.5.2015)  have  been  prepared  for  the  ERDF  and  the  ESF 
Funds, but the Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Food, as the managing authority of the rural development programme, in the framework 
of  which  the  use  of  financial  instruments  is  also  planned  for  the  programming  period  2014-2020,  will  nevertheless  provide  a  reply  to  this 
question. 

The  Ministry  of  Agriculture,  Forestry  and  Food  will,  as  the  managing  authority  of  the  rural  development  programme  of  the  Republic  of 
Slovenia for the period 2014-2020, in the context of reporting on financial instruments meet all of the requirements of the regulations and the 
delegated and implementing regulations (including Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 821/2014 of 28 July 2014) with regard to 
the correct reporting of the implementation of the financial instruments. The managing authority is implementing financial instruments under 
the EAFRD for the first time in the 2014-2020 programming period, and thus we have no previous experience in this area. In light of the above 
we will when reporting on financial instruments in the context of the RDP 2014-2020 comply with the requirements of the regulations and 
delegated  and  implementing  regulations  and  other  instructions,  guidance  and  guidelines  issued  by  the  European  Commission  or,  mutatis 
mutandis,  taking  into  account  the  instructions  for  reporting  on  financial  instruments  (reference:  EGESIF-150015  –  6.5.2015),  as  well  as 
examples of good practice and the experience of other Member States. 

Government Office for Development and European Cohesion Policy (SVRK): In its annual report on the implementation of the Operational 
Programme  for  Strengthening  Regional  Development  Potentials  for  the  period  2007-2013  as  part  of  which  financial  instruments  were 

202

 
 
 
implemented, for 2014 Slovenia reported on the basis of the new report template adopted in May by the EGESIF. The data in the report for the 
year 2014 were duly completed and corrected according to the EC comments on the report on financial instruments in past years.  

Ministry of Economic Development and Technology (MGRT): With regard to financial instruments, we do not have any data that any separate 
measures  have  been  adopted  for  improving  the  quality  of  reporting.  We  established  the  reporting  method  during  the  planning  of  the  PFEI. 
Reporting shall be done by the MGRT/ Slovenian Enterprise Fund (SEF) as holding fund manager, MA-SEF, EC-MGRT/SEF, MF-SEF, etc. 
In addition to the regular reporting in accordance with Financing Agreement (quarterly, annual, interim, final) the SEF will also report to the 
MF monthly on the balances of the funds. We also report to the MA on the implementation of financial engineering instruments in the form of 
extensive EL tables. 

Ministry of Finance — Budget Supervision Office (BSO): NO  
Government Office for Development and European Cohesion Policy (SVRK): The Public Procurement Act provides sanctions for major 
infringements, which are considered an offence for which financial penalties (fines) are prescribed in relation to the gravity of the 
infringement.  In addition, we also use the Commission guidelines in this area and the instructions of the managing authority (MA) on 
management verifications, which are based on or summarise the Commission guidelines. 
Ministry of Economic Development and Technology (MGRT): At the MGRT we adhere to the EU rules and legislation and the national 
legislation (PPA). Infringements of the legislation are treated in accordance with EU instructions (COCOF Guidelines) and the instructions of 
the MA.  
As regards financial engineering instruments, we did not conduct public procurement procedures except in cases where it was necessary to 
carry out an analysis/study (e.g. ex ante assessment of financial instruments, analysis of equity financing, etc.). In these cases we took into 
account both the national (PPA) as well as EU legislation. In the implementation of financial engineering instruments or allocation of 
resources we used a public procurement process where we took account of the Slovenian legislation (Supportive Environment for 
Entrepreneurship Act, cohesion regulation, etc.) and EU legislation (State Aid, Cohesion Regulations 1083/2006 and 1828/2006). 
Yes;  

Government Office for Development and European Cohesion Policy (SVRK): The annual training on public procurement and building upon 
the managing authority’s instructions on management verifications and control documents, it emerges that the error rate in the awarding of 
public procurement contracts has been reduced. 
Ministry of Economic Development and Technology (MGRT): In the implementation of instruments we take into account the instructions of 
the MA, which define procedures for implementing administrative control under Article 13 (and 125 for the period 2014-2020) and on-the-
spot  checks.  Monitoring  of  the  use  of  funds  is  also  conducted  by  the  MF,  BSO,  EC  and  the  Slovenian  Court  of  Audit.    As  regards  the 
implementation, monitoring and control of the implementation of financial engineering instruments, the MGRT has prepared instructions on 
management verifications, where a particular process, risk analysis, control, etc., is prescribed. We also work with the BSO, which regularly 
carries out inspections both at the Slovenian Enterprise Fund and the MGRT. 
Yes;  

Ministry of Economic Development and Technology (MGRT): The BSO in the context of its audit work (systemic audits, audits of operations) 
also reviews the State Aid rules. At the same time, the State Aid sector is important for IB-MGRT, which prepares the legal bases 

203

Q 4.1. 

Q 5.1. 

Q 6.1. 

 
 
 
 
 
Q 6.2. 

Q 6.3. 

(programme) for approval of State Aid schemes. Compliance with the State Aid rules is also subject to administrative controls and on-the-spot 
checks carried out in the framework of management verifications at the IB. 
No;  

Government Office for Development and European Cohesion Policy (SVRK): In the framework of the implementation of the cohesion policy, 
the BSO carried out a horizontal audit of State Aid, in which no major systemic irregularities were found. The BSO recommendations concern 
in particular the harmonisation of control documents and the integrity of the reporting on SA in the annual reports. 
Yes;  

Government Office for Development and European Cohesion Policy (SVRK): In connection with the BSO recommendations the checklists 
have been updated and the recommendation for the preparation of the annual reports was taken into account. 
No;  

Ministry of Economic Development and Technology (MGRT): The MGRT will not take any preventive measures, since no deficiencies were 
identified in relation to the rules on State Aid in 2014. We will continue to monitor compliance with the State Aid rules, taking into account all 
findings from previous years. 

Q 7.1. 

Government Office for Development and European Cohesion Policy (SVRK): Flat rates and standard unit costs. 

Ministry of Economic Development and Technology (MGRT): The MGRT will take into account the possibility of simplified cost 
options on the basis of Regulation EC 1303/2013 on common provisions and the instructions of the MA. From the point of view of 
financial engineering instruments, this is a case of simplified monitoring of costs, since the eligible cost is paid to the holding fund 
(which includes funds for businesses and management fee). 

SPAIN 

Q 1.1. 

EAFRD: Yes 

EMFF: Yes 

ESF: Yes 

ERDF: Yes 

204

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
CF: Yes 

Q 1.2. 

Additional indicators have been designed where the indicators proposed in the regulations were not appropriate for measuring the 
impact of actions supported by the Funds.  

ESF: Essentially we are considering  the  indicators set out in Annex I and Annex II to Regulation 1304/2013. However, special 
indicators for the particular Operational Programme and action have been defined in the performance framework. 

EMFF: We will use the performance indicators provided for in Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) No 1014/2014       

ERDF:  The  common  indicators  (productivity  or  output)  have  been  used  in  most  cases,  where  this  is  possible  based  on  the 
operations supported. It has only been necessary to define additional output indicators in certain specific cases.  

The ERDF results indicators have been defined in each programme for each specific investment priority and objective as there is 
no  common  set  of  core  indicators.  The  reason  for  this  is  the  Commission’s  requirement  that  the  'result  indicators'  should  be 
changed, i.e. should be 'moved' when actions are implemented. This has meant that the defined indicators are much closer to the 
actions, but at the same time they are very different from one another and cannot be drawn from official sources but are provided 
by the bodies implementing the actions. 

Q 1.3. 

Q 2.2. 

Q 3.5. 

Q 3.6. 

Q 4.1. 

Q 5.1. 

Yes 

No 

Sometimes the check is not sufficiently exhaustive and shortcomings are detected, particularly relating to transparency and publicity. 

Improvement of specific training for inspectors on public procurement and updating of control procedures. 

ESF: There are two new procedures: 1) risk analysis for each operation that will establish mitigation controls for risk and fraud alerts; 2) 
check-lists to accompany the file used as evidence when submitting projects or operations for cofinancing. 
ERDF and the Cohesion Fund: In Spain, a 'working document on possible criteria for application of the provisions of Article 98 of Regulation 
(EC) No 1083/2006 on expenditure co-financed by ERDF and the Cohesion Fund' was available for the period 2007-2013. This document will 
be updated for the period 2014-2020. 
Yes;  

Improvements to the measures have been implemented within the action plans stemming from control reports identifying possible deficiencies 

205

 
 
 
 
from  the  Commission,  the  IGAE  or  the  managing  authority  itself.  Improvements  have  been  incorporated  in  procedures  for  selecting  and 
validating reimbursement  statements, improving checklists, reviewing procurement documents for various local entities and so on.  Quality 
control of the procedures has also been stepped up prior to certification, depending on the risk of each operation. We also intend to categorise 
intermediate bodies taking into account the results of the system audits and the operation checks. This categorisation will call for greater care 
during verifications. 
Yes 

No 

Yes;  

Checklists for operations, Risk assessment matrix. 

ERDF and the Cohesion Fund: In the draft eligibility order we plan to accept the simplified cost options permitted in the general 
Regulation  subject  to  any  limitations  required  to  make  them  consistent  with  national  legislation  and  avoid  incorrect  application 
thereof. 

Q 6.1. 

Q 6.2. 

Q 6.3. 

Q 7.1. 

SWEDEN 

Q 1.1. 

EAFRD: Yes 

EMFF: Yes 

ESF: Yes 

ERDF: Yes 

CF: 0; Not applicable 

Q 1.2. 

ESF: A complementary performance indicator has been added to the Swedish Social Fund programme. In addition, the managing 
authority has developed indicators to be able to report results for the programme’s target groups and the horizontal criteria.  

ERDF:  In  total,  the  nine  programmes  have  some  35  output  indicators,  of  which  just  over  half  are  common  EU  indicators. 
Moreover, the programmes have some thirty performance indicators that are linked to investment priorities and specific objectives 

206

 
 
 
 
 
 
within the programmes. The indicators are set out in the adopted programmes. 

Q 1.3. 

Yes;  

The joint funds working group is currently preparing the report. 

Q 2.2. 

No;  

Q 3.7. 

Q 3.8. 

Q 4.1. 

Q 5.1. 

Q 6.1. 

Q 6.2. 

Q 6.3. 

Q 7.1. 

For the ERDF, we consider that the reporting follows the requirements of the regulations. We see a value in guidelines and decide our position 
on  them  with  consideration  for  proportionality  and  administrative  costs.  However,  we  are  concerned  that  guidelines  have  a  tendency  to  be 
viewed as binding, which can result in over-regulation and increased administrative costs. 

We intend to follow up the Swedish cases referred to by the Court of Auditors once we receive the audit report, and to propose measures as 
required. 
We intend to follow up the Swedish cases referred to by the Court of Auditors once we receive the audit report, and to propose measures as 
required. 
No 

Yes; 

ESF: A risk assessment plan has been developed in order to identify any risks that could lead to funding being paid out incorrectly at an early 
stage. Such a plan is drawn up for all Social Fund projects before a decision is taken on support. The payment process is made more efficient 
in that focus is placed on expenditure in which any errors could have a major impact, and less effort is devoted to reviewing formalities. On-
site  checks  will  be  carried  out  for  all  Social  Fund  projects  during  the  current  programming  period,  instead  of  using  a  model  for  statistical 
selection as before. 
Yes 

No 

No 

ERDF:  Sweden  is  one  of  two  Member  States  to  have  a  simplification  model  for  ESF  laid  down  in  an  Annex.  The  national 
Ordinance  that  governs  ERDF/ESF  provides  for  the  use  of  simplified  cost  options.  In  addition,  the  Government  has  given  a 
mandate  to  the  managing  authorities  for  the  ESI  Funds  to  actively  seek  opportunities  for  simplification  for  project  owners 
throughout the programming period. 

207

 
 
 
 
 
UK 

Q 1.1. 

EAFRD: Yes 

EMFF: Yes 

ESF: Yes 

ERDF: Yes 

CF: 0; UK does not receive CF. 

Q 1.2. 

All UK Operational Programmes had elements where the common indicators did not provide all the answers. The UK programmes 
have  programme  specific  indicators  and  these  are  detailed  in  the  approved  operational  programme  documents.  For  example,  in 
Wales the Operational Programmes contain programme specific indicators at investment priority level. 

Q 1.3. 

Yes;  

UK programmes will all have meaningful data on progress against a range of indicators. 

Q 2.2. 

Q 3.1. 

Q 3.2. 

Q 3.3. 

Q 3.4. 

Q 4.1. 

UK  Managing  Authorities  account  of  all  guidance  issued  by  the  Commission.  There  has  not  been  a  problem  with  reporting  on  Financial 
Instruments. 

(UKCB) The reference to the UK in this question appears to be an error. We are not aware of any observation made by the Court suggesting 
artificially created conditions in the UK. 
(UKCB) The reference to the UK in this question appears to be an error. We are not aware of any observation made by the Court suggesting 
artificially created conditions in the UK. 
(UKCB) N/a – the UK beneficiary referenced held a contract under a scheme designed in line with Csion best practice on controllability. The 
cause of error was categorised by the ECA as the fault of the beneficiary and not the administration.   
In this case the non-compliance was identified via a record check and was subject to the appropriate sanction. The farmer was subject to a 
follow up inspection in 2015 where it was determined he had met his agri-environmental commitments. 
The national legislation is the Public Contract Regulations 2015, which transposes the Public Procurement Directive 2014/24/EU. UK ESIF 
authorities utilise the Commission Guidance on Procurement Errors in dealing with breaches of the rules. For example, the Scottish 
Government use the checklist provided by the European Commission augmented by a specific Scottish section. 

208

 
 
 
 
Q 5.1. 

Yes;  

The  Scottish  Government  has  carried  out  a  series  of  pre-visits  and  put  in  place  additional  direct  engagement  with  senior  management  of  a 
number of organisations which has improved their understanding of what is required during a verification visit and has resulted in the quality 
of the data available being improved. 
The  England  ESF  MA  has  introduced  a  range  of  improvements  to  their  Article  13  verification  programme  in  response  to  higher  than 
acceptable error levels that resulted in the interruption of the programme. The following measures have been introduced in cooperation with 
the Audit Authority: 
• The introduction of a revised approach that ensured all verifications were completed in a limited timeframe and before the expenditure was 
certified to the Commission. 
• Increased the sample sizes at On –The- Spot (OTS) visits and adopted a more risk-based selection of provider visits and participant files for 
inspection. 
• Introduced a standard sampling approach and strengthened internal guidance and procedures across the Article13 operational sub-teams.  
In Wales, WEFO’s Management Verification Team carries out a health check with all applicants, which includes giving pre-approval advice 
on  public  procurement.  And  for  the  claims  process,  every  claim  undergoes  a  verification  check  which  includes  a  compliance  check  on 
procurement activity – this applies to all contracts, whether above or below the OJEU threshold. Those claims are not included in drawdown 
until the verification checks are complete and any identified irregular expenditure has been removed. 
Yes 

No 

No 

Q 6.1. 

Q 6.2. 

Q 6.3. 

Q 7.1. 

The Scottish Government is considering the use of Simplified Cost Options.  

Department for Communities and Local Government are using Simplified Cost Options in some 2014-20 ERDF funded projects in 
England.  

In  Wales  all  options  are  made  available  to  beneficiaries  –  flat-rates,  unit  costs  and  lump  sums.    In  addition,  flat-rates  for 
reimbursing  indirect  costs  are  mandatory  for all  beneficiaries.    We  are  working  with  beneficiaries  to  put  in  place  unit  costs  for 
project staff costs (hourly rates) as well as activity-based and output-based unit costs. 

209

 
 
 
 
ANNEX III B 

Part B. Please enter any general comments you have concerning the 2014 Annual report or 
general issues relating to the discharge procedure. 

Belgium: 

Les réponses apportées aux constatations préliminaires du chapitre 6 (Cohésion économique et sociale) contenues à l’annexe II avaient déjà été 
communiqués à la Cour des comptes européenne par l’Autorité de gestion dans son courrier du 4 juin 2015 (référencé 
SPW/DCFS/DGP/SBM/DBX/CCE-juin2015). 
ERDF-VL: Flat rate for indirect costs + introduction of standard hourly rate 
ESF-VL: Ideally, in its comments about Belgium, the ECA should take account of the responsibilities of the regions and communities for the 
various funds. These should therefore be specifically mentioned in its report. 

Czech Republic 

National Coordinating Body 
Response to observations 3.71-3.73, SMART objectives 

The ECA criticises the general directorate for the inconsistent use of SMART objectives, without considering the usefulness of this instrument. 
There is no scientific proof that SMART objectives help organisations to increase their effectiveness, i.e. the reason why they exist (Wauters, 
2011). Although they can increase reportability, they can also diminish effectiveness and efficiency. Instead of concentrating on fulfilling their 
raison d’être, organisations focus on the reportability of quantitative targets that do not lead to effectiveness. In other words, inefficiency stems 
from the energy that they spend on activities delivering no utility value. 

By contrast, these days there are enormous numbers of scientific sources indicating the essentially perverse effects of setting quantitative targets 
at an organisation-wide level. We might name, at random, Radin (2006), De Bruiin (2002), Thiel, Leeuw (2002), Johansson (2015) and many 
others. The setting of SMART objectives works on the assumption that an objective’s values depend solely on the organisation being measured 

210

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Part B. Please enter any general comments you have concerning the 2014 Annual report or 
general issues relating to the discharge procedure. 

and that all of the organisation’s workers identify with the objective. Other than that, SMART objectives anticipate that the organisation is 
capable of reaching the objective in the first place. This ignores entirely the current knowledge on the nature of the environment in which public 
organisations find themselves – a landscape that is more interlinked and more holistic than ever before (Johansson, 2015). That is to say, an 
organisation does not achieve results alone, but must work on them with other organisations (and not just public ones!), and at the same time the 
handling of complex problems is not self-evident; the precise impact of the actual activities cannot be predicted in advance. Hence it is 
impossible to know in advance what sort of target value of quantified objectives the organisation is capable of achieving. This results in the 
aforementioned borderline-perverse effects, such as gaming and creaming. In a nutshell, reportability does not equate to utility. 
The discussion above is very sketchy and incomplete. If the observations that have been made are to carry any weight, it is necessary to grapple 
with the arguments set out in the literature below: 

Hans de Bruijn, (2002) ‘Performance measurement in the public sector: strategies to cope with the risks of performance measurement’, 
International Journal of Public Sector Management, Vol. 15 Iss: 7, pp. 578-594 
Thiel, S., Leeuw, F. (2002). The Performance Paradox in the Public Sector. Public Performance & Management Review, Vol. 25 No 3 
Radin, B. (2006). Challenging Performance Movement: Accountability, Complexity, and Democratic Values. Georgetown University Press 
Johansson, V. (2015). When we will ever learn? NISPAcee. Vol. 8, pp. 149-170 
Wauters, B., 2013, SMART or not: are simple management recipes useful to improve performance in complex world? A critical reflection based 
on the experience of Flemish ESF Agency, COP RBM, available online at http://www.coprbm.eu/?q=node/4 

Denmark 

A vital aspect of satisfactory implementation of the EU budget is generating results and ensuring that these results support the overarching 
political objectives. It is therefore important to Denmark that focus remains on establishing the framework for a results-oriented system with 
greater focus on the results and impact of EU projects. We therefore take a positive view of the annual report’s increased focus on this.  

Denmark is pleased that, for the eighth year running, the Court of Auditors was able to give a positive opinion on the reliability of the accounts 
and thus considers that the EU’s accounts give a fair view of revenue and expenditure and of the EU’s financial position. It is also satisfying that 

211

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Part B. Please enter any general comments you have concerning the 2014 Annual report or 
general issues relating to the discharge procedure. 

the Court of Auditors gave a positive opinion of the legality and regularity of the transactions with regard to own resources and of the payments 
relating to administration. 

However, Denmark is unhappy that the Court once again had to issue a negative opinion on the payments as a whole. Despite the stabilisation of 
the error rate in recent years, a lot of work remains to be done to achieve an audit opinion with fewer reservations.  

Denmark takes the view that both the Commission and the Member States bear responsibility for ensuring satisfactory implementation of the 
budget and emphasises the importance of using all available instruments. We would point out that it is important that the Commission focuses its 
efforts on headings and Member States where error rates are considerably higher than two per cent. In this connection, it should also be borne in 
mind that demands for ever greater control entail heavier administrative burdens. It is therefore also a priority for the Government to focus on the 
reasons for the complexity and to work towards simpler rules that will lighten the administrative load for both authorities and beneficiaries. 

Lithuania 

Within its remit, the Ministry of Finance has no comments and questions concerning the 2014 annual report of the Court. 

Poland 

Poland is pleased to note a minor reduction in the error rate concerning payments from the EU budget (4.4%, as compared with 4.5% in 2013). 
The fact that a stable overall error rate was maintained even though the 2014 budget was the second largest ever, with significant cumulation of 
cohesion policy expenditure from the 2007-13 programming period, gives cause for satisfaction. 
However, we note with concern the significant increase in the error rate under heading 1a - R&D (from 4% to 5.6%) and heading 4 - External 
relations (from 2.1% to 2.7%), which can only partially be explained by the increase in appropriations under those headings. 
Notwithstanding a minor increase in the error rate in the cohesion policy field, the trend in regional expenditure, which accounts for 80% of 
appropriations under those headings, is positive (a significant reduction). 
In addition, the annual error rate calculated by the Court of Auditors should be seen in the context of the multiannual character of EU 

212

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Part B. Please enter any general comments you have concerning the 2014 Annual report or 
general issues relating to the discharge procedure. 

intervention (including net financial corrections and recovered amounts). 
The corrective action taken by the Member States and the Commission had a major impact. According to the Court of Auditors, if this action had 
not been taken on the transaction sample tested by the Court, the overall estimated error rate would be 1.1 pp. higher (1.6 pp. in 2013), which 
translates into an amount of €1.6 billion approx. 
We would draw particular attention to the recommendation of the Court of Auditors that the Commission take measures to reduce the backlog of 
outstanding commitments under cohesion policy, including faster closure of the 2007-13 programmes. In some Member States (beneficiaries of 
cohesion policy), total EU funding arrears account for a significant percentage of annual public expenditure. 
We agree with the Court of Auditors on the need to improve indicators and to introduce uniform, comparable benchmarks for all EU budget 
expenditure (all budget headings managed by both the Member States and the Commission). 

Spain 

There are no additional comments to those expressed in this report. 

213