COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT Implemention of Article 325 TFEU by the Member States in 2015 Accompanying the document REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL Protection of the European Union's financial interests - Fight against Fraud 2015 Annual Report
Date: 2016-07-14
Institutions: European Anti-Fraud Office, European Commission
Subjects: EU Member State, EU expenditure, EU programme, common strategy, corruption, fight against crime, financial control, fraud, fraud against the EU, illicit trade

EN 

   EN 

   EUROPEAN COMMISSION  Brussels, 14.7.2016  SWD(2016) 234 final   COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT Implemention of Article 325 TFEU by the Member States in 2015 Accompanying the document REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL Protection of the European Union's financial interests - Fight against Fraud 2015 Annual Report {COM(2016) 472 final} {SWD(2016) 235 final} {SWD(2016) 236 final} {SWD(2016) 237 final} {SWD(2016) 238 final} {SWD(2016) 239 final}  
 
 
TABLE OF CONTENTS 

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS..................................................................................................... 3 

1. 

Implementation of article 325 TFEU by Member States .................................................... 4 

2.  Most important Anti-Fraud measures adopted by member states in 2015 under the article 
325 TFEU ................................................................................................................................... 5 

2.1.  Results of the measures reported in the Questionnaire ..................................................... 5 

2.2.  Actions taken by Member States in the anti-fraud cycle .................................................. 8 

2.3.  Measures reported by area ................................................................................................ 9 

2.3.1.  The ‘Other’ category ................................................................................................... 10 

2.3.2.  Public Procurement ...................................................................................................... 14 

2.3.3.  Financial Crime (and money laundering) .................................................................... 15 

2.3.4.  Conflict of Interest ....................................................................................................... 16 

2.3.5.  Corruption .................................................................................................................... 17 

2.3.6.  Measures Reported Concerning Anti-Fraud Coordination Service (AFCOS) ............ 17 

2.3.7.  Measures to prevent organised crime .......................................................................... 18 

2.3.8.  Fraud definition ........................................................................................................... 19 

2.3.9.  Measures on the Protection of Whistle-blowers .......................................................... 20 

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

3.  Case studies and Best practices by Member States ........................................................... 63 

3.1.  Revenue .......................................................................................................................... 63 

3.1.1.  Tobacco ....................................................................................................................... 63 

3.1.2.  Customs ....................................................................................................................... 68 

3.2.  Expenditure ..................................................................................................................... 69 

3.2.1.  Structural funds ............................................................................................................ 69 

3.2.2.  Agriculture and Fisheries ............................................................................................. 73 

3.3.  Best practices .................................................................................................................. 74 

3.3.1.  Corruption and conflict of interest ............................................................................... 74 

3.3.2.  Managing Authority's kick-off meeting with contract manager .................................. 78 

2 

 
 
 
 
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS 

COCOLAF 

Advisory Committee for the Coordination of Fraud Prevention  

AFCOS 

Anti-Fraud Coordination Service 

CAP 

CF 

CP 

CCIP 

CRMS 

DG 

EAFRD 

EAGF 

EFF 

EU 

EUR 

ERDF 

ESF 

ESIF 

Common Agricultural Policy 

Cohesion Fund 

Cohesion Policy 

Community Customs Code Implementing Provisions  

 Community Customs Risk Management system 

Directorate General 

European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development 

European Agricultural Guarantee Fund 

European Fishery Fund 

European Union 

Euro 

European Regional Development Fund 

European Social Fund 

European Structural and Investment Funds 

FEAGA (EAGF) 

European Agricultural Guarantee Fund 

FEADER (EAFRD) 

European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development 

NAFS 

NSRF 

MCS 

MS 

OLAF 

TFEU 

TOR 

National Anti-Fraud Strategy  

National Strategic Reference Frameworks 

Management Control System 

Member State 

European Anti Fraud Office  

Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union 

Traditional Own Resource 

3 

 
 
 
 
1. 

IMPLEMENTATION OF ARTICLE 325 TFEU BY MEMBER STATES 

Article  325(5)  of  the  TFEU  requires  the  Commission,  in  cooperation  with  the  Member 
States,  to  submit a report each year to  the European  Parliament and the Council on the 
measures  taken  to  implement  that  article.  The  Commission  bases  the  part  of  the  report 
relating to the Member States on the answers to the 'Article 325' questionnaire, as agreed 
upon with them within the Advisory Committee for the Cordination of Fraud Prevention 
(COCOLAF), and adapted each year in the light of past experience, so as to facilitate the 
monitoring of anti-fraud measures. Consequently, each year the Commission draws up a 
report  in  cooperation  with  the  Member  States  on  the  measures  taken  to  implement  this 
obligation,  according  to  Article  325  of  the  Treaty  on  the  Functioning  of  the  European 
Union (TFEU). This report is addressed to the European Parliament and the Council and 
it is published. 

This questionnaire covers the period from 1 January to 31 December 2015. Up and until 
the  2014  report,  information  for  this  section  of  the  Report  was  collected  by  the 
Commission through a questionnaire composed of a general part, where Member States 
listed  the  three  most  important  measures  (legislative,  administrative,  organisational  or 
operational)  taken,  and  of  a  part  dealing  with  a  specific  subject  agreed  with  Member 
States' COCOLAF representatives each year. Over time the report had become more and 
more voluminous. Both the Council and the European Parliament were concerned that its 
size was increasing and the fact that the document is annual, horizontal and multisectoral 
hampered a detailed assessment of all the aspects of the protection of the EU’s financial 
interests by the Member States. To address this and reduce the administrative burden on 
the  Member  States,  the  Commission  decided  to  omit  the  specific  part  of  the 
questionnaire. As in previous years, the general questionnaire asks the Member States to 
present the main measures that give effect to Article 325, i.e. measures to combat fraud 
and  all  illegal  activities  affecting  the  financial  interests  of  the  EU.  Member  States  are 
invited  to  describe  a  maximum  of  five  ‘key’  measures  taken  in  2015,  in  order  to 
implement Article 325 of the Treaty.  

The  questionnaire  was  structured  around  questions  offering  multiple  ‘closed’  answers 
(with, when required, some sub-questions providing further limited choices) and limiting 
the  possibility  to  submit  free  text  (fixed  at  600  characters  maximum).    In  2015,  the 
Member States were given the possibility to report up to 5 most important measures and 
additional  measures,  concerning  mainly  federal  countries  and  countries  with  devolved 
administration  in  the  field  of  anti-fraud  strategy.  As  has  been  the  case  since  2013,  the 
questionnaire was managed through the 'EU survey' platform. 

4 

 
 
 
2.  MOST  IMPORTANT  ANTI-FRAUD  MEASURES  ADOPTED  BY  MEMBER  STATES  IN  2015 

UNDER THE ARTICLE 325 TFEU 

2.1.  Results of the measures reported in the Questionnaire  

Member  States  reported  one  hundred  and  nineteen  measures  adopted  in  2015  in  total, 
referring to various areas concerning the protection of the EU's financial interests and the 
fight against fraud. Eighteen Member States1 used the opportunity to report the maximum 
five 'most important' measures adopted to protect the financial interests of the EU.  

Most measures adopted by the Member States targeted public procurement. The majority 
of the measures adopted concerned the fraud prevention phase of the anti-fraud cycle for 
both programming periods 2007-2013 and 2014-2020.  

Six Member States2 have so far adopted a National Anti-Fraud Strategy (NAFS) for the 
programming period 2015-2020. The Czech Republic has reported that it plans to adopt a 
revision  of  its  NAFS  and  Italy  reported  that  its AFCOS  has  drawn  up  and  developed  a 
NAFS which was included in the 2012 Annual Report to the Italian Parliament (Strategic 
anti-fraud orientations). An additional five Member States3 reported that the adoption of 
their  NAFS  is  on-going.  Seven  Member  States4  have  an  on-going  procedure  for  the 
adoption of a National Anti-Fraud Strategy. 

Examples of national anti-fraud measures include: 

  Bulgaria adopted a 2015-2016 Action Plan for the implementation of the NAFS.  
  Denmark  adopted  a  National  Anti-Fraud  policy which  was  launched  in  2015  on 
the Danish Business Authority's website to foster a culture that is not conductive 
to fraud and to promote fraud prevention and detection. 

  Germany  adopted  an  anti-fraud  and  anti-corruption  strategy  and  performed  a 
fraud risk assessment of all European Regional Development Fund measures. 
  Ireland  reported  that  it  has  adopted  an  Anti-Fraud  Policy  and  Fraud  Response 
Plan (Information and Guidelines for Staff dealing with rural development).    

1  

2  
3  
4  

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

5 

 
 
 
                                                            
National Anti-Fraud Strategies adopted by 2015 

6 Member 
States 
adopted NAFS  

8 MS no NAFS 

2 MS Strategic 
Anti-Fraud 
orientations 

7 MS NAFS 
under 
preparation 

5 MS NAFS 
adoption 
ongoing 

The chart above illustrates the analysis of information provided by Member States in the 
documents: "Follow-up recommendations to the Commission report on the protection of 
the  EU's  financial  interests  –  fight  against  fraud,  2014"  and  "Questionnaire  on  the 
protection of the EU's Financial Interests 2015".  

6 

 
 
 
 
 
Table 1:  Measures reported by Member States 

7 

SinglePackageSinglePackageSinglePackageSinglePackageSinglePackageSinglePackageSinglePackageSinglePackageSinglePackageBE53113111BG51311111121CZ522111212112DK51113DE51321122EE4111211113IE313GR52122111111121ES5111311FR431HR33IT52111113CY11LV521111111132LT51131LU5211211HU511121MT11NL514AT311111PL44PT51111111111RO51311313111SI51121211111SK51311113121112FI512222SE42122UK211142220118810157247798410382016Conflict of InterestFraud DefinitionAFCOSWhistleblowerOtherTotal119363125Member StateNo of MeasuresPublic procurementFinancial Crime (+ Money Laundering)58Organised Crime31141714CorruptionThe table shows the number of measures  reported by the Member States (118), and the nine areas in which they are reported (public procurement, Financial Crime (and money laundering), Organised crime, Corruption, Conflict of Interest, Fraud Definition, AFCOS, Whistleblowers and 'Other'. Measures may be reported as a single measure or as a package of measures covering more than one area.  
 
 
2.2.  Actions taken by Member States in the anti-fraud cycle 

In the questionnaire Member States were asked to indicate which stage or stages of the anti-
fraud cycle (see graphic below) are targeted by each measure reported.  

Stages of the anti-fraud cycle 

Prevention should be treated as a priority by managing, certifying and audit authorities, in 
order to mitigate the fraud risks. It shall be made more effective through closer cooperation 
between all stakeholders and an overall enhanced co-ordination of actions.  

Detection is a critical stage that should be handled with due diligence and proactively by all 
stakeholders, management and control authorities, including audit authorities as well as law 
enforcement services.  

Investigations and prosecution are closely interlinked. Their efficiency requires appropriately 
qualified staff, full cooperation of the management and control authorities and smooth 
collaboration among the authorities. Cooperation with other relevant actors at EU and 
national level is also of high importance.  

Recovery and sanctions should be effective and rigorously followed up by the relevant 
administrative and law enforcement authorities. 

Table 2 below demonstrates that while the majority of measures focused on prevention, 
Member States pay attention to all stages of the anti-fraud cycle, resulting in a holistic 
approach to fraud prevention across the European Union.  

8 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Table 2: Areas addressed by anti-fraud measures reported and the stages of the anti-fraud cycle 
targeted (prevention, detection, investigation and prosecution, recovery and sanction). Note: a 
measure is counted each time it addresses one or more of the four stages of the anti-fraud cycle, in one 
or more areas. 

2.3.  Measures reported by area 

In areas pre-selected in the questionnaire5, the largest number of measures reported by the 
Member States were in relation to public procurement (thirty-six), followed by financial 
crime  and  money  laundering  (thirty-one),  conflict  of  interest  (thirty  one),  corruption 
(twenty five), AFCOS (seventeen), organised crime (sixteen), fraud definition (fourteen), 
whistle-blowers (fourteen)6.  

The  ‘other’  field  was  selected  by  the  Member  States  fifty-eight  times,  separately  or  in 
combination  with  the  above  mentioned  areas,  in  order  to  clarify  a  measure,  or  to 
introduce  another  area  (for  example  co-ordination  of  fraud  prevention,  customs-related 
fraud, etc.), or a strategy in the programming period 2007-2013 and 2014-2020 to counter 
fraud affecting the financial interests of the Union.  

The amount of replies reported as ‘other’ for the year 2015 increased (from twenty-six in 
2013 to forty-one in 2014 to fifty eight in 2015), which can be explained by the adoption 
of a bulk of provisions concerning the new programming period 2014-2020 and dealing 
with remaining issues regarding the old programing period 2007-2013.  

5  

6  

The questionnaire outlined eight areas of specific PIF sectors to which the measures taken by the Member States 
applied;  the  'other'  field  was  used  to  report  miscellaneous  areas  or  horizontal  strategies.    Federal  countries  and 
countries  with  devolved  administration  in  the  field  of  anti-fraud  strategy  had  the  possibility  to  list  'additional 
measures' in a special field.  
Reference to 'area' is, therefore, not equal to a single measure adopted. 

9 

PreventionDetectionInvestigation and prosecutionRecovery and sanction34241492625191612129719128633251212131497131166111054453117172061649984TotalPublic procurementFinancial Crime (+ Money Laundering)Organised CrimeCorruptionConflict of InterestFraud DefinitionAFCOSWhistleblowerOther 
 
 
 
 
                                                            
All of the answers were analysed according to the anti-fraud cycle: prevention, detection, 
prosecution and sanctions.  

2.3.1.  The ‘Other’ category  

The Member States referred, in fifty eight cases, to the category 'other' to clarify the area 
(preselected in the questionnaire as public procurement, financial crime, organised crime 
etc.)  or  in  order  to  introduce  a  reference  to  'another'  area.  A  comprehensive  list  of 
measures classified as 'other' are detailed in table 3.  

Table 3: Details on measures reported as 'other' 

Member 
State 

No 
MEASURE 

BE 

1 

3 

BG 

1 

2 

3 

2 

3 

1 

2 

3 

1 

CZ 

DK 

DE 

Other Area reported for each measure 

Program Act of 10 August 2015. 

for 

and 

the  new  grants 

capacity.  Access 
information 

1)  Customs:  Inspection  of  goods  with  a  view  to 
improving  measures  to  combat  fiscal  and  non-fiscal 
crime and improving the collection of EU own resources. 
2) ERDF Brussels-Capital Region: Analysis of State and 
issues  under 
the  2014-2020 
programming  period.  3)  ERDF  Flanders:  Overall 
compliance with the regulations and eligibility. State aid. 
Management and control of EU funds. Administration of 
irregularities  and  electronic  reporting.  Strengthening  of 
information. 
administrative 
Databases 
systems. 
Cooperation with OLAF and the competent authorities of 
criminal 
the  MS.  Administrative 
investigations. 
Management  and  control  of  European  Structural  and 
Investment Funds.  
Unpaid  public  state  receivables  established  by  the 
customs  authorities.  Penalties  for  the  smuggling  of 
goods.  Forfeiture  to  the  State.  Customs  investigation 
activities. Operative-search and convoying activities.  
The  CSA  covers  a  large  scale  of  activity  of  the  public 
sector,  including  stability  and  efficiency  of  public 
service. 
Customs and tax administration. 

to 
exchange 

checks 

and 

Management  of  funds/Anti-fraud  or  anti-corruption 
strategy. 
Increased knowledge of the fraud risk. 

Management of funds. 

Coordination  of  fraud  prevention  in  the  agriculture  and 
fisheries sectors. 

10 

 
 
 
 
EE 

GR 

ES 

FR 

3 

4 

5 

1 

2 

3 

1 

2 

5 

3 

1 

2 

3 

4 

Management of funds.  

Anti-fraud  and  anti-corruption  strategy,  guidelines  for 
intermediate  bodies  combating  fraud  and  corruption, 
fraud risk assessment. 
Management of funds. 

 Management  of  funds.  Integrity  and 
measures. 
 Integrity and transparency measure. 

transparency 

 Management of funds. 

risk 

The  General  Secretariat  of  Anti-Corruption, 
in 
cooperation  with  European  institutions,  international 
organizations and all involved national authorities, draws 
up  and  coordinates  implementation  of  the  National 
Strategic  Plan  to  combat  corruption  and  fraud.  The 
National  Plan  in  general:  (a)  is  modular  and  consists  of 
aims, measures and specific actions (b) covers the public 
sector  and  includes  initiatives  that  also  involve  the 
private  sector,  (c)  includes  legislative,  administrative, 
organizational and  operational measures and actions,  (d) 
covers  inter  alia:  funding  of  political  parties,  ethics  and 
integrity,  public  procurement,  high 
sectors, 
whistleblowing,  foreign  bribery,  etc.  (e)  enhances  and 
facilitates  cooperation  of  the  involved  administrative, 
inspectorate, law enforcement and judiciary authorities. 
The  measure  of  Management  and  Control  System 
adoption targets Structural Actions for the Programming 
Period 2014-2020.  
Update  of  the  Rural  Development  Programme  with  new 
Project Selection Procedures. 
Improving  information  exchange  between  the  various 
actors with access to relevant information with the aim of 
detecting irregularities and instances of fraud.  
Action  to  combat  the  illicit  trade  in  tobacco  products. 
This  measure  is  intended  to  authorise  the  ratification  by 
France  of  the  WHO  Protocol  to  Eliminate  the  Illicit 
Trade in Tobacco Products. 
Traditional Own Resources (TOR). 

Community  mutual  administrative  assistance  in  customs 
matters,  as  provided  for  under  Regulation  (EC)  No 
515/97 of 13 March, as amended. 
Spontaneous exchange of information relating to customs 
controls  and  risks  between  EU  Member  States'  customs 
offices in accordance with the Community Customs Code 
-  Article  4g  of 
Implementing  Provisions 
Regulation  (EC)  No  1875/2006  of  18  December  2006). 
These  exchanges  take  place  via  DG  TAXUD's  CRMS 

(CCIP 

11 

 
 
 
 
  
IT 

LV 

LT 

LU 

HU 

1 

2 

4 

1 

2 

1 

2 

4 

5 

3 

3 

4 

system (Community Customs Risk Management).  

Anti-fraud and anti-corruption strategy. 

lays  down  control  procedures 

for 
The  measure 
agricultural  payments  under  the  CAP  (2013  single 
payment  scheme),  for  checking  potentially  fraudulent 
declarations of land occupancy made by beneficiaries  in 
order  to  obtain  access  to  applicants  for  or  payment  of 
premiums.  
Combating fraud against local, regional, national and EU 
budgets. 

state 

abolition 

judiciary, 

investment, 

aid, 
immunity, 

Public  officials,  human  resource  management  in  the 
public  sector,  internal  control  standards,  construction, 
of 
squandering, 
administrative 
education 
(corruption  and  ethical  topics  in  the  education  system), 
codes  of  ethics,  illicit  enrichment,  proceeds  of  crime, 
financing  of  political  parties,  lobbying,  management  of 
funds,  health  system,  asset  declarations,  transparency  of 
public  institutions,  private  sector,  sport  organizations, 
awareness raising activities and informative materials. 
Management of funds. 

Anti-corruption strategy. 

their 

Collaboration  with  law-enforcement  authorities  for  the 
purposes  of  expeditiously  obtaining  information  relating 
investigating 
to 
infringements and recovering unlawfully used funds.  
Detection and prevention of artificially created conditions 
for obtaining aid. 

investigations, 

pre-trial 

Prevention  of  irregularities  and  fraud,  protection  of 
European Union and Lithuanian financial interests. 

Management of Structural Investment Funds. 

Fraud prevention and detection at the paying agencies for 
the  period  2014-2020,  definition  of  irregularities  and 
fraud, fraud typology. 
Adoption  of  an  anti-fraud  strategy  for  the  2014-2020 
programming  period  for  the  European  Structural  and 
risk  assessment, 
(ESIF).  Fraud 
Investment  Funds 

12 

 
 
 
 
management, and relevant procedures. Training in fraud 
prevention,  with  a  view  to  knowledge-sharing.  Themes: 
Introduction  to  the  ESIF  system  (fraud  and  corruption 
irregularity  management, 
prevention  module), 
presentation  of  ARACHNE  (IT  tool  for  risk  analysis  in 
shared  management),  professional  ethics, 
integrity, 
prevention  of  corruption.  Introduction  to  ARACHNE, 
development of risk scoring function in  own IT system. 
Organisational  restructuring,  increase  of  the  number  of 
on-the-spot checks. 

Evasion of own resources (anti-dumping duty). 

Modernisation/automation of import declarations (AGS).  

The  payment  of  own  resources  (including  anti-dumping 
duty) and excise is an explicit administrative priority. 
Address the problem of double declarations. 

Anti-fraud  measures  (also  includes  avoiding  conflicts  of 
interest). 

Organisation  update  of  the  paying  agency.  Uniform 
Application  and  Central  payment  of  EMFF  funds. 
Improved  reporting  on  irregularities  according  to  Reg.  
908/2014 annex II and annex III. 
Management of EU funds. 

Anti-corruption strategy. 

Trade in tobacco products. 

Combating fraud in projects co-financed by EU funds. 

European  funds  -  EAGF  and  EAFRD,  as  well  as  other 
support  payments  through  the  IFAP,  in  particular  under 
the EFF/EMFF. 
Management of EAFRD Agricultural Funds. 

Management of EU regional development funds. 

Measure on fraud prevention and detection. 

Administrative  measure  –  more  efficient  recovery  of 
unduly spent European cohesion policy funds: Obligatory 
elements  of  the  2014-2020  co-financing  contract  agreed 
with  the  State  Attorney's  Office  and  the  Ministry  of 
Finance. 
Financial control and audit – fraud detection. 

Anti-fraud strategy. 

13 

NL 

AT 

PL 

PT 

RO 

SI 

SK 

1 

2 

3 

5 

1 

3 

1 

2 

3 

4 

1 

2 

2 

3 

3 

1 

2 

 
 
 
 
 
FI 

SE 

UK 

5 

1 

3 

1 

3 

1 

Common Agricultural Policy. 

Fraud  prevention  action  plan  in  the  area  of  agriculture. 
Tasks relating to the misuse of aid and grants. 

Tax fraud. 

On-the-spot  checks  and  competent  authorities:  The 
proposals from the inquiry cover on-the-spot checks and 
the  role  of  competent  authorities  and  the  AFCOS. 
However, the proposals are still subject to referral. 

Seminar dealing with public procurement and state aid. 

Management of funds in the case of ESIF. 

2.3.2.  Public Procurement 

Member  States  reported  thirty-six  references  concerning  public  procurement  (legislative, 
administrative,  organisational  and  operational  measures).  Similar  to  previous  years,  these 
were adopted either as a single measure (14) or in combination with provisions in other areas 
(22),  such  as  corruption,  organised  crime,  conflict  of  interest,  fraud  definition,  whistle-
blowers  and  'other'.  The  references  to  public  procurement  were  reported  by  a  majority  of 
Member States7. Examples of measures in this area include: 

  Greece  introduced  procedures  for  the  prevention  and  fight  against  fraud  in  the 
Management  and  Control  System  (MCS)  of  the  NSRF  2014-2020.  In  addition  it 
adopted  administrative  measures  in  the  framework  of  the  Rural  Development 
Programme  National  Action  Plan  with  the  objective  of  lowering  the  error  rate, 
favouring  the  use  of  comparative  assessment  and  programmed  cyclical  restricted 
invitations.  

  Spain strengthened the ex-ante checks carried out by audit bodies to physically verify 
the effective completion of works, services and acquisitions financed by public funds 
and to check whether they match the content of the corresponding contract or order. 
  Italy adopted Law No 69 of 27 May 2015 (Italian Official Gazette No 124 of 30 May 
2015)  on  ‘Provisions  on  criminal  offences  against  the  public  administration,  and 
involving  mafia-like  organisations  and  false  accounting’.  This  measure,  the  aim  of 
which  is  to  lay  down  harsher  penalties  for  corruption,  bribery  and  embezzlement, 
provides for a number of simultaneous amendments to the Civil Code to increase the 
penalties for false accounting for  publicly listed and other companies. 

  Hungary adopted Act CXLIII of 2015 on public procurement, the objective of which 
is  to  transpose  the  new  public  procurement  directives  adopted  by  the  EU  legislature 
into Hungarian law.  

7  

The 19 Member States reporting measures on public procurement were: Belgium, Bulgaria, Czech 
Republic, Germany, Estonia, Ireland, Greece, Spain, Italy, Cyprus, Latvia, Luxembourg, Hungary, 
Portugal, Romania, Slovenia, Slovakia, Finland, Sweden. 

14 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                            
  In Romania the public procurement arrangements will be reformed by transposing the 
new  European  Directive  on  this  matter;  adopting  the  national  public  procurement 
strategy; ensuring the global coherence and efficiency of institutional arrangements by 
setting  up  a  National  Public  Procurement  Agency;  and  strengthening  national 
cooperation  between  the  institutions  involved  in  the  management  and  monitoring  of 
European funds in order to identify risks arising from public procurement. 

  Slovenia introduced changes to public procurement and the remit of the Commission 
for  the  Prevention  of  Corruption  (KPK):  1.  The  IT  tools  have  been  upgraded  in  the 
interest  of  the  public  authorities,  the  general  public  and  the  media,  now  allowing 
access  to  data  on  spending  by  public  institutions  (through  contracts  for  work  and 
material  or  copyright  contracts)  on  goods  and  services  provided  by  public  sector 
employees;  2.  Local  authorities  have  produced  integrity  plans  and  identified  risks 
(KPK presented its findings at a round-table entitled Municipal assets – a focal point 
for corruption risk. 

  Finland introduced  a comprehensive reform of public procurement legislation on the 
basis  of  EU  Directives  2014/23/EU,  2014/24/EU  and  2014/25/EU  on  public 
procurement. 

  The  Czech  Republic  amended  Public  Procurement  Act  No.  40/2015  in  compliance 
with Directive 2014/24/EU.  It will come into effect in June 2016 and the first contract 
will be published in 2017. 

  Ireland  introduced  a  National  Law,  namely  Statutory  Instrument  No.  93  of  2015, 
European Union (Direct Support Rural Development Schemes) Offences and Control 
Regulations 2015. The Statutory Instrument sets out the powers of authorised officers 
and  details  offences  and  penalty  provisions  in  relation  to  measures  funded  by  the 
EAFRD co-funded Rural Development Programme. 

  Cyprus introduced a change in legislation regarding modifications on public contracts.  
  In Latvia the amendments to Public Procurement Law and training entered into force. 
Since  1  August  2015  inspection  rules  of  exclusion  only  allow  suppliers  that  have 
passed the tax liability to participate in public procurement. 

2.3.3.  Financial Crime (and money laundering) 

Nineteen Member States8 reported thirty-one references to financial crime and money 
laundering. Examples of measures include: 

  Belgium organised a series of training courses on anti-money-laundering measures for 
tax officers and magistrates in the public prosecutor's office and at headquarters.  
  Bulgaria  adopted  an  Act  amending  and  supplementing  the  Tax  and  Social  Security 

Procedure Code and Act amending and supplementing the Customs Act. 

  Estonia  implemented  the  VATSUM  system  (VAT  returns,  automatic  comparison  of 
transactions  over  EUR  1  000  and  the  person's  background)  to  facilitate  the  work  of 
inspectors. 

8  

Belgium, Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Ireland, Greece, Spain, Italy, Latvia, Hungary, 
Austria, Portugal, Romania, Slovenia, Slovakia, Finland, Sweden, United Kingdom.  

15 

 
 
 
 
                                                            
  Italy adopted Law No 69 of 27 May 2015 (Italian Official Gazette No 124 of 30 May 
2015)  on  ‘Provisions  on  criminal  offences  against  the  public  administration,  and 
involving  mafia-like  organisations  and  false  accounting’.  This  measure,  the  aim  of 
which  is  to  lay  down  harsher  penalties  for  corruption,  bribery  and  embezzlement, 
provides for a number of simultaneous amendments to the Civil Code to increase the 
penalties for false accounting for publicly listed and other companies. 

  Approval  of  the  2015-2017  Strategic  Plan  to  combat  tax  and  customs  fraud  and 

evasion by Portugal. 

  Financial  Administration  of  Slovenia  (FURS):  The  Rules  on  the  exercise  of  public 
powers  by  FURS  officials  was  adopted.  The  2014  Financial  Administration  Act 
redefines the powers of officials of the joint customs and tax authority.  

  Finland organised a campaign against the hidden economy.   
  The  Swedish  Council  for  the  protection  of  the  European  Union's  financial  interests 
(the  SEFI  Council)  worked  on  its  tri-annual  report  to  the  Government  for  the  years 
2013-2015.  The  report  sets  out  which  measures  have  been  undertaken  during  this 
period  to  promote  efficient  and  correct  management  of  EU-related  funds.  It  also 
contains a description of the coordination of the relevant authorities' work to combat 
fraud, abuse and other improper use of EU funds.  

  In  the  Czech  Republic  an  Act  (86/2015)  came  into  effect  stipulating  new  measures 
concerning  confiscation  of  offenders'  property  in  connection  with  causing  financial 
damage to the EU.    

2.3.4.  Conflict of Interest  

Sixteen  Member  States9  referred  to  thirty  one  measures  taken  in  order  to  eliminate 
conflict of interest. 

The following are examples of legislative and/or organisational provisions taken: 

  Denmark  introduced  rules  in  January  2015  stipulating  that  all  officials  working  on 
case handling and payment of aid requests under the Common Agricultural Policy will 
have to sign declarations of no conflict of interest. The official's line manager reviews 
rules  on  conflict  of  interest  when  officials  are  appointed  and  during  annual 
assessments.  Officials  consequently  undertake  not  to  handle  cases  with  which  they 
have any personal or economic connection. 

  In Hungary the Presidential Directive No 18/2015 of 21 May 2015 entered into force 
laying down the detailed rules governing the acceptance and examination/investigation 
of  reports  on  abuses,  irregularities  and  integrity  and  corruption  risks  within  the 
organisation,  integrity  consultancy  activities  and  the  procedure  for  dealing  with 
lobbyists. 

  The Netherlands started the testing of ARACHNE and plans to bring ARACHNE into 

operation for the 2014-2020 programming period. 

  In  2015  the  Agency  of  the  Republic  of  Slovenia  for  Agricultural  Markets  and  Rural 

Development (ARSKTRP) organised courses for all staff on combating fraud.  

9  

Belgium,  Bulgaria,  Czech  Republic,  Germany,  Estonia,  Greece,  Italy,  Latvia,  Luxembourg,  Hungary, 
Netherlands, Austria, Portugal, Romania, Slovenia, Slovakia. 

16 

 
 
 
 
                                                            
  Luxembourg  introduced  a  measure  on  declaration  of  conflicts  of  interests  and 

whistleblowing in the agricultural sector (EAGF and EAFRD).     

2.3.5.  Corruption 

Thirteen  Member  States10  referred  to  single  or  packages  of  measures  taken  in  order  to 
eliminate  corruption  in  the  framework  of  other  measures  or  national  strategies 
(corruption,  transparency  measures,  auditing  procedures)  and  introduced  specific 
measures to fight corruption in public procurement.  

  Germany introduced several anti-corruption measures including the entering into 
force  of the Prevention of Corruption  Law on 26 November 2015, an anti-fraud 
and  anti-corruption  strategy,  including  fraud  risk  assessment  of  all  European 
Regional  Development  Fund  measures,  and  guidelines  for  intermediate  bodies 
combating fraud and corruption.  

  Estonia  introduced  a  measure  to  raise  awareness  about  corruption,  including 

training for officials and a hotline for reporting suspicions anonymously. 

  Spain introduced a reform of the Penal Code to strengthen penalties for offences 

of corruption in public administration. 

  In  May  2015  the  Hungarian  Government  adopted  the  National  Anti-Corruption 
Programme, which constitutes its anti-corruption strategy for a four-year period.  
  In  Romania  a  strategy  for  integrity  2015-2020  was  adopted  by  the  Ministry  of 
Regional  Development  and  Public  Administration  (MDRAP).  This  document 
introduces measures which aim to tackle certain problems and vulnerabilities that 
are  specific to  MDRAP’s  areas  of  activity and competences,  and  offer solutions 
that provide a real and effective response.  

  The  Civil  Service  Act  (CSA)  came  into  force  on  1  January  2015  in  the  Czech 
Republic,  including  measures  to  prevent  corruption  in  the  public  service.  The 
Czech Republic also adopted a Government Resolution (418/2014) on Basic Anti-
Corruption Directions to guide the government's fight against corruption.  

  Latvia  approved  on  16  July  2015  the  Corruption  Prevention  and  Combating 
Guidelines  for  2015-2020.  This  mid-term  planning  document  describes  the 
current situation of Latvia’s anticorruption policy, defines problems and stipulates 
tasks to be executed by various state institutions, sets out the implementation time 
frame for individual assignments, and justifies the assignment and overall policy 
results to be expected within a certain period of time. 

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

Twelve  Member  States11  reported  measures  concerning  their  Anti-Fraud  Coordination 
Service (AFCOS). Some examples include: 

10  

11  

Belgium,  Czech  Republic,  Denmark,  Germany,  Estonia,  Greece,  Spain,  Italy,  Latvia,  Romania, 
Slovenia, Slovakia, Finland.  
Bulgaria, Estonia, Greece, Spain, Croatia, Latvia, Malta, Portugal, Romania, Slovenia, Slovakia, 
Sweden.  

17 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                            
  Estonia  reported  a  measure  covering  all  stages  of  the  anti-fraud  cycle  aimed  at 
improving  the  cooperation  between  implementers  of  support  and  the  investigating 
authorities  -  regular  joint  seminars,  which  provide  a  place  for  sharing  experiences, 
case studies. 

  The  Greek  General  Secretariat  against  Corruption  was  designated  as  AFCOS.  The 
Greek  AFCOS  a)  cooperates  with  OLAF  and  all  International  and  European 
Institutions and Organizations as well as the national competent authorities in the field 
of  European  Financial  Interests  and 
the  fight  against  fraud  b)  coordinates 
administrative, inspectorate, law enforcement and judiciary authorities in the cases of 
suspected fraud, c) develops prevention policies and initiatives d) receives complaints 
for the EU (co) financed actions.  

  Bulgaria  adopted  a  2015-2016  Action  Plan  for  the  implementation  of  the  National 
Strategy  for  the  prevention  of  and  fight  against  irregularities  and  fraud  affecting  the 
financial interests of the European Union, adopted by the Council of Ministers on 27 
May  2015.  The  Plan  sets  out  measures  for  achieving  the  following  objectives 
contained in the Strategy: improvement of prevention; increasing the efficiency of the 
detection and counteraction of irregularities and fraud; strengthening cooperation with 
OLAF  and  the  MS;  increasing  the  efficiency  of  activities  related  to  investigation, 
recovery  and 
imposing  of  penalties.  A  deadline,  responsible  authority  and 
implementation indicator is given for each activity. 

  Spain granted legal status to the National Anti-Fraud Coordination Service (Servicio 

Nacional de Coordinación Antifraude - AFCOS). 

  In  March  2015,  the  Swedish  Ministry  of  Finance  initiated  an  inquiry  tasked  with 
reviewing  the  legal  situation  regarding  OLAF’s  on-the-spot  checks  in  Sweden,  inter 
alia in order to bring it up-to-date with the present Multiannual Financial Perspective 
2014-2020.  

  The  Republic  of  Croatia  adopted  several  AFCOS  measures,  namely:  guidelines  on 
management of irregularities for the period 2007-2013 and 2014-2020, a protocol on 
cooperation  and  information  exchange  between  the  ministry  of  finance  and  the 
ministry of the interior, and a protocol on cooperation between the ministry of finance 
and the state attorney in the context of protecting EU financial interests. 

  The Latvian AFCOS organized a seminar with the participation of OLAF to improve 

cooperation for on-the-spot checks. 

2.3.7.  Measures to prevent organised crime  

Thirteen Member States12 reported sixteen measures to prevent organised crime. 

  Spain  established  an  Office  of  Asset  Recovery  and  Management.  This  is  a  new 
body,  integrated  into  the  General  State  Administration  to  assist  the  Judiciary, 
which  is  responsible  for  (1)  locating,  (2)  recovering,  (3)  preserving,  (4) 

12  

Bulgaria,  Czech  Republic,  Denmark,  Greece,  Spain,  Italy,  Latvia,  Luxembourg,  Hungary,  Portugal, 
Romania, Slovenia, Finland. 

18 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                            
administering and (5) realising/disposing of effects, assets, instruments and profits 
from criminal activities committed as part of organised crime. 

  Romania  adopted  Law  No  318/2015  on  the  establishment,  organisation  and 
functioning of the National Agency for the administration of seized goods, which 
under the authority of the Ministry of Justice. 

  The  Slovenian  Ministry  of  the  Interior  (Police  and  the  Police  and  Security 

Directorate) adopted annual guidelines for police work including identifying and 

investigating economic crime and organised forms of corruption. 

  The  2015-2019  Greek  Crime  Policy  Programme  sets  the  strategic  guidelines  for 
the fight against Financial Crime and Organized Crime. The Programme includes 
specified objectives in the respective fields and constitutes a major priority of the 
Hellenic Police. 

2.3.8.  Fraud definition 

Ten  Member  States13  reported  fourteen  measures  concerning  the  definition  of  fraud. 
Examples include: 

  In  Germany,  the  Anti-fraud  and  anti-corruption  strategy,  including  fraud  risk 
assessment of all European Regional Development Fund measures, and guidelines for 
intermediate  bodies  combating  fraud  and  corruption,  included  some  clarifications  on 
definitions. 

  Estonia clarified definitions during an AFCOS activity which involved improving the 

cooperation between implementers of support and the investigating authorities. 

  In  Lithuania,  The  internal  procedures  of  the  National  Paying  Agency  under  the 
Ministry of Agriculture were updated (the description of the procedure for transmitting 
information and receiving information from law-enforcement authorities), taking into 
account the Guidance Note of 26 February 2014 on Anti-fraud Measures as foreseen 
in the context of Accreditation Criteria. 

  In Latvia, Cabinet regulations adopted regarding financial control of ETC 2014-2020 
programmes and projects. The Ministry of Welfare of the Republic of Latvia approved 
Guidelines for fraud prevention in  FEAD and  Guidelines  for financial  corrections in 
FEAD. 

  Luxembourg introduced a reporting procedure in case of suspected fraud (FEDER). 
  Portugal's  2015-2017  Strategic  Plan  to  combat  tax  and  customs  fraud  and  evasion 

included clarifications of definitions. 

  Slovakia's  National  Strategy  for  the  Protection  of  the  European  Union´s  Financial 

Interests  included definitions 

13  

Belgium, Germany, Estonia, Greece, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Portugal, Slovenia and Slovakia.  

19 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                            
2.3.9.  Measures on the Protection of Whistle-blowers 

The  ‘whistle-blowers’  area  was  marked  in  the  responses  of  ten  Member  States14. 
Examples of the fourteen measures reported include: 

  In the Czech Republic, the Civil Service Act of 6/11/2014 included procedures to 
anonymise and protect whistle-blowers, as well as rules to process their reports. 
  In  Lithuania  the  EU  structural  funds  website,  www.esinvesticijos.lt,    which 
publishes  all  information  relating  to  the  administration  and  use  of  EU  structural 
funds  of  interest  to  project  promoters,  potential  applicants,  EU  structural  fund 
administration  authorities  and  the  public,  offers  visitors  the  possibility  of 
providing information anonymously on suspected cases 
Romania  applied  procedures  to  report  irregularities  and  protect  whistle-blowers 
who report or notify irregularities at the Ministry of European Funds. 

 

14  

Bulgaria,  Czech  Republic,  Estonia,  Greece,  Latvia,  Lithuania,  Luxembourg,  Portugal,  Romania, 
Slovakia. 

20 

 
 
 
 
                                                            
2.4.  Structured  answers  of  28  Member  States  –  measures  taken  concerning  the 

EXPENDITURE areas of the EU budget 

21 

 
 
 
 
22 

SPF Finances: Cayman Tax. The Cayman tax is a tax charge on certain income from certain legal constructions, in the hands of Belgian individuals (and Belgian entities subject to legal entitites income tax. 1) Training of tax officers in anti-money-laundering measures.2) Training given by an official in the Commission's DG AGRI to officers handling EAGF, EAFRD and ERDF cases in Wallonia on the prevention and detection of fraud in January 2015 and similar training in Flanders in October 2014. 3) L'Institut de formation judiciaire (the Judicial Training Institute) organised courses on 23.10.15 (in Dutch) and 18.11.15 (in French) on economic and financial criminal law, specifically on the subject of laundering, aimed at magistrates in the public prosecutor's office and at headquarters.Strengthening frontline controls: 1) Customs: Modernisation of goods inspections through the use of advanced technologies and the computerisation of certain parts of the control process, e.g. reporting and internal communication. 2) ERDF Brussels-Capital Region: Recruitment of staff to strengthen checks on public procurement and the appropriate use of grants.  3) ERDF Flanders: Strengthening of double-checks.  4) ESF German-speaking community: Guide for ESF project promoters on the application of the procurement rules.1)Establishment  of Datamining Service  within  Customs  Administration. In the Benelux, VAT carousel  fraud  has been a big  fraud  scheme since the 70s. Hereafter, this fraud  scheme is extended to  Europe because of the Maastricht Treaty  in  1993. This scheme is successfully combatted in  Belgium by   means  of Social  Network Analysis.  This know   how  is transferred to Greece as  a project of the Belgian Special Tax   Inspectorate. 2) Analysis in preparation for the use of the ARACHNE IT programme for the 2014-2020 ERDF programming period in Wallonia.Circular No 11/2015 of 1.10.15 of the Collège des procureurs généraux (Board of Prosecutors-General) - public corruption, private corruption, embezzlement, unlawful taking of interest and misappropriation by a person holding public office: criminal policy, processing of cases and legal framework.Public corruption cases should be treated as a matter of priority. The level of priority is assessed particularly in the light of the involvement of EU or international officials. Cases of corruption involving foreign public officials must be given special attention.Anti-fraud cycleRecovery and SanctionPrevention; Detection; Investigation and ProsecutionPrevention; Detection; Investigation and ProsecutionPrevention; DetectionInvestigation and prosecution MeasuresNewNewNew Administrative & Updated OperationalNewNewScope of administrative measureRecoveryGeneral trainings and Fraud awareness trainingsEligiblity criteria and Management of fundsReorganisation of existing bodies; Competence and Fraud awareness trainingsReorganisation of existing bodies; Competence and Streamlining proceduresScope of operational measureIT tools, Web reporting/Hotline, increased number of checks, other.IT tools; Risk indicatorsType of act  within administrative measureProgram actDecision/Resolution    Reasons for administrative measurePrevent Belgian tax payers from hiding assets in foreign constructionTo clarify or consolidate existing  rules, to enhance existing measureOrganisational measure - expected results in terms of resources      Increased resourcesDate of organisational measure01/01/201501/01/201501/01/2015Expected result of operational measure Enhanced information flow; Targeting of checks and Enhanced ex-ante controlsEnhanced coordination;Enhanced information flow;Targeting of checks, Enhanced information flow and Enhanced ex-ante controlsOperational measure - date01/01/201501/01/2015Sectoral or HorizontalSectoralSectoralSectoralSectors concernedRevenue - Tax FraudRevenue - Tax Fraud; Expenditure - Agriculture; Expenditure - Fisheries; Expenditure - Cohesion policyExpenditure - Cohesion policyRevenue - Customs; Revenue - Tax Fraud; Expenditure - Cohesion policy.Sectors addressed by measure against corruption in public procurement Public and Private sector Public and Private sectorOther measures preventing corruption in public procurementMeasures to improve the effectiveness of prosecution - The circular sets out the criminal policy and gives practical guidelines for public prosecutors in order to promote efficient handling of cases involving public corruption, private corruption, embezzlement, unlawful taking of interest and misappropriation by a person holding public office.BELGIUM    (BE)MEASURES 
 
 
23 

2015-2016 Action plan for the implementation of the National strategy for the prevention of and fight against irregularities and fraud affecting the financial interests of the European Union, adopted by the Council of Ministers on 27 May 2015. The Plan sets out measures for achieving the following objectives contained in the Strategy:  improvement of prevention; increasing the efficiency of the detection and counteraction of irregularities and fraud; strengthening cooperation with OLAF and the MS;   increasing the efficiency of activities related to investigation, recovery and imposing of penalties. A deadline, responsible authority and implementation indicator is given for each activity.Act on the management of European Structural and Investment Funds   The Act amending and supplementing the Customs ActThe Hercule III project ‘Increasing the administrative capacity of the National Revenue Agency for the prevention and investigation of fraud affecting the EU’s own resources system’. Four international seminars were held with the participation of 160 representatives of the tax and customs authorities of Bulgaria, Romania and Greece, along with OLAF and AFCOS, to exchange experience and discuss case studies from the fight against fraud. Steps have been taken to improve the interaction between administrations of MS in the Balkan region for the prevention and detection of fraud affecting the EU budget and national budgets.The Hercule III project ‘Increasing the administrative capacity of the National Revenue Agency for the prevention and investigation of fraud affecting the EU’s own resources system’. Four international seminars were held with the participation of 160 representatives of the tax and customs authorities of Bulgaria, Romania and Greece, along with OLAF and AFCOS, to exchange experience and discuss case studies from the fight against fraud. Steps have been taken to improve the interaction between administrations of MS in the Balkan region for the prevention and detection of fraud affecting the EU budget and national budgets.Anti-fraud cyclePrevention; Detection; Investigation and prosecution; Recovery and sanctionPrevention; Detection; Recovery and sanctionPrevention; Detection; Investigation and prosecution; Recovery and sanctionPrevention; Detection and Recovery and sanctionPrevention; Detection; Investigation and prosecution; Recovery and sanction MeasuresNew NewAmendmentAmendmentNewPackage of measuresOrganisational and OperationalLegislativeLegislativeLegislativeOrganisationalCompetences; Powers; Financial penalties; Other administrative penalties and Criminal sanctionsCompetences; Powers; Recovery;  Financial penalties; Other administrative penalties and Criminal sanctions*Criminal sanctions: more (they have been increased)*Criminal sanctions: more (they have been increased)Reorganisation of existing bodies; Competence; Inter-agency cooperation; General trainings; Fraud awareness trainings and Simpification of proceduresOTHER: The plan provides for the organisation of the preparation by the competent national authorities of new regulations to enhance efficiency in the fight against fraud affecting the financial interests of the EU, and a number of other activities implementing the objectives of the National StrategyScope of operational measureIT tools (IT data feeding, other IT); Web reporting/Hotline; Flagging practice; Risk indicators; Increased number of checks; Structured cooperation with law enforcement and with judicial authoritiesExpected result of operational measureEnhanced coordination; Enhanced cooperation; Enhanced information flow; Targeting of checks; Targeting of investigations; Enhanced ex-ante controls and Enhanced ex-post controls Expected result of organisational  measure: resourcesIncreased resourcesNeutral on resourcesLegislative Act - date22/12/201507/08/201504/12/2015Date27/05/201526/10/2015Legislation - type of ActLaw/ActLaw/ActLaw/ActNature of the measureHorizontalSectoralSectoralSectoralSectoralSectors concerned Expediture-Agriculture; Expediture-Fisheries and Expediture-Cohesion policyRevenue-Customs; Revenue-Tax fraudRevenue-Tax fraud; Expediture-Agriculture; Expediture-Fisheries and Expediture-Cohesion policyRevenue-Customs; Revenue-Tax fraudLegislative Act - numberThe Act on the management of European Structural and Investment Funds has been adopted by the National Assembly and was published in State Gazette No 101 of 22.12.2015Scope of organisational measure The Act amending the Customs Act has been adopted by the National Assembly and was published in State Gazette No 60 of 7.8.2015ZID DOPK has been adopted by the National Assembly and was published in State Gazette No 94 of 04.12.2015   Brief description of the legislative measureThe Act on the management of European Structural and Investment Funds (ESIF) lays down the national institutional framework for the management and control of ESIF funding, consolidates the legislation basis for their management, and provides for administrative liability for infringements. The Act regulates the provision of a grant under an administrative contract and the interrelation of the various authorities and beneficiaries in the implementation of projects, the verification and certification of expenditure, the execution of payments,the administration of irregularities and financial correctionsThe Act amending the Customs Act was drawn up with a view to aligning national legislation with EU customs legislation and fine-tuning the practical application of the provisions of the Act.  The Act provides for the exchange of information between the Customs Agency and the Ministry of the Interior, strengthens penalties for cigarette smuggling, and increases the powers of customs officials to prevent, detect and tackle crime in respect of VAT obligations on imports and excise duties.  Controls were extended that aim at the prevention and detection of infringements of customs and excise legislationThe ZID DOPK increases the number of bodies with the right of access to tax and social security information: OLAF, in connection with administrative investigations;  the customs authorities, in exercise of their powers;  the Finance Minister, in the course of legal or arbitration proceedings.  The Act speeds up the process of collecting public and private State receivables in connection with requests from bodies managing EU funds, in the context of activities of the National Revenue Agency aimed at preventing and countering irregularities and fraud affecting the EU budget and the national budget  Reasons for legislative measureTo clarify or consolidate existing rules and To enforce the rules in line with developments in EU lawTo clarify or consolidate existing rules; To remedy flaws and To enforce the rules in line with developments in EU lawTo clarify or consolidate existing rules; To remedy flaws and To enforce the rules in line with developments in EU law Inter-agency cooperation; General trainings and Fraud awareness trainings BULGARIA (BG)MEASURESScope of legislative measure Competences; Powers and  Recovery 
 
24 

Amendment  of Public Procurement Act No. 40./2015 Coll.  and the  amendment  Act. No. 375/2015 Coll.  This Act was   amended  in  compliance with the  Directive  No.2014/24/EU.  Act No. 340/2015  Coll., on   Contract Register (adopted 14.12.2015), which place  the  duty on   public bodies to  publish every contract  exceeding a value of 50   000CZK.  It will come   into effect in June 2016 and the  first contract  will  be published in 2017, from then concerned contracts  will  be valid after  being published.Civil Service Act  (CSA) -The  CSA is the first law of this  type in the Czech Republic. It was   adopted in  2014, but it came  into effect on   1st  of January 2015. It covers  whole agenda of public service,  including corruption in public service  and connected topics. It  is a single legislative measure, but as a result of its  implementation, different measures have been taken. By  adopting this Act the  Czech Republic has fulfilled the obligation to professionalise the public service  placed on   it by   the EU.   Adoption of the Joint  Declaration of the Customs  Administration of the Visegrad  Group (V4)  countries on   18th  September 2015 on   introduction risk profiles concerning textile and footwear  products  from Asian countries (Trenčín Declaration).  The   Declaration was   signed after  negotiations  during the  years  2014 and 2015 to  respond the  need of common   solution between V4 countries. Stipulated measures of the Joint  Declaration came  into effect on 1st  January 2016. Customs Administration  of the  Czech Republic created necessary risk  profiles  and adjusted its internal rules.Government  Resolution  No. 418/2014 on   Basic Anti-Corruption Directions  on   the Governmental Level  sets-up  the  main direction  of the government in the fight against corruption. Government  Resolution  No. 1057/2014 on   The   Government Anti-Corruption Conception for  the  Years 2015 to  2017 and the  Anti-Corruption Action Plan for  2015 is strongly  connected to  them. There is  also the Action plan for  2016 adopted by   Government  Resolution  No. 1033/2015 on   14th  December 2015.The   Act No. 86/2015  Coll., that came  into effect on   1.6.2015, stipulated  new measures concerning  confiscation  of the offenders'  property in connection with causing financial  damage to  the  EU.   More   specifically, when   the offenders are not using the EU  money  for the specified  purposes that  were stipulated in the legal  agreement. The   Section 70   of the  Act was   amended, which introduced  in case of gained illegal profit by   perpetrators,  the obligatory confiscation of the property in each case.Anti-fraud cyclePreventionPrevention and DetectionPrevention and DetectionPreventionPrevention; Recovery and sanction MeasuresNew and Updated/AmendmentNew New Updated/AmendmentNew and Updated/AmendmentCompetences; Powers and Definition of a specific topicOTHER: The CSA covers large scale of activity  of public sector, including stability and professionality of public serviceScope of operational measureIT tools ('IT date feeding', Other IT) and Risk indicatorsExpected result of operational measureEnhanced coordination; Cooperation and Information Flow; Targeting of checks and Targeting of investigationsLegislative Act - Date06/03/201506/11/201404/06/201401/06/2015Operational  - date18/09/2015Legislation - Type of ActLaw/ActLaw/ActDecisionLaw/ActNature of the measureHorizontalHorizontalSectoralHorizontalHorizontalSectors concerned by the operational measure Revenue - Customs and Tax FraudCorruption within  public procurementPublic sector (including political sphere) and private sectorPublic sector (including political sphere)Public sector (including political sphere)Mesures taken in the fight against corruption in public procurementAddressing transparency in public procurementTo prevent corruption amongst personnel, including management and it is not directly connected to corruption in public procurementAddresing transparency in public procurement and to improve the effectiveness of management of public procurement and to prevent corruption amongst personnel, including managementAct No. 86/2015  Coll.Brief description of the legislative measureNew  Act will  replace the current  Public Procurement  Act 137/2006  Coll., byApril  2016.To  implement Section  205 d)  of  the  Civil  Service  Act,  which impose the  duty on government to clarify the topic of protection of whistleblowers working under the CSA,   the following was   adopted: Government  Regulation  No. 145/2015 Coll., on   the  measures related  to reporting suspicion of committing the offense in the service office. It  deals with the possibilities  of  anonymizing whistleblowers, their  protection and setting  up   rules on   how  to process their reports1) The   Conception describes in detail  the propositions embedded  in the Basic Directions  and aims to  define  governmental anti-corruption policy limits,  in particular  specify effective instruments, formulate basic content of one-year anti-corruption  action plans and define its institutional framework.2) The   Action Plans present  a coherent  and particular  expression of the Government  anti-corruption policy.  It stipulates key measures of  both legislative and non-legislative  nature,  which will  be implemented by   the Government in  upcoming yearThe   Act No. 86/2015  Coll., amended the  Act No. 141/1961 Coll., Code  of Criminal Procedure.  There is  a wider possibility  to use the judicial  seizure (securing) of the offender's  property as to safeguard the rights  of the injured party stipulated  in Section 47  (Securing a victim‘s claim) of the Code of  Criminal  Procedure  (this  can include claims of managing authorities and similar bodies distributing  the resources from the  EU  fundsLegislative Act - numberAct No. 40/2015 Coll.  and Act No. 375/2015 Coll.  (amendment of  Act No.137/2006 Coll.  (Public  Procurement Act),  Act No. 340/2015 Coll.,  (on ContractRegister)Act.  No. 234/2014 Coll.Government  Resolution No. 418/2014  and  Government Resolution  No. 1057/2014 andGovernment  Resolution  No. 1033/2015To clarify or consilidate existing rules and to remedy flawsCzech Republic  (CZ)MEASURESScope of legislative measure Competences and Definition of a specific topicDefinition of a specific topicRecovery  Reasons for legislative measureTo clarify or consilidate existing rules; remedy flaws and to enforce the rules in line with developments in EU lawTo clarify or consilidate existing rules and enforce the rules in line with developments in EU lawTo clarify or consilidate existing rules; remedy flaws and enforce the rules in line with developments in EU law 
 
 
 
25 

Demark adopted an anti-fraud policy for the European Regional Development Fund and the European Social Fund which was launched in 2015 on the Danish Business Authority's website to foster a culture that is not conducive to fraud and to promote fraud prevention and detection. The policy is issued to all aid recipients when they are granted an EU cofinancing contract.Draft for case handlers in the managing authority and certifying authority to create increased awareness of fraud indicatorsInternal coordination of cases where there is a suspicion of fraud – uniform decision process for cases where there is a suspicion of fraud, and gathering of experience and knowledge at the central unit.Fight against fraud by setting up the Anti-fraud Office for all areas dealt with by SKAT. The Office's main objective is to analyse trends and new areas of fraud with a view to uncovering and fighting fraud.All officials working on case handling and payment of aid requests under the Common Agricultural Policy will have to sign declarations of no conflict of interest. The official's line manager reviews rules on conflict of interest when officials are appointed and during annual assessments. Officials consequently undertake not to handle cases with which they have any personal or economic connection.Anti-fraud cycleFraud prevention Detection DetectionPrevention; DetectionPrevention MeasuresNewNewNew NewNewScope of administrative measureManagement of funds; Irregularities reportingMonitoring/desk checksScope of organisational measureCompetenceReorganisation of existing bodiesScope of operational measureInternal coordination of cases where there is a suspicion of fraud – uniform decision process for cases where there is a suspicion of fraud, and gathering of experience and knowledge at the central unit.Type of act  within administrative measureCircular; Instructions; Guidelines; ManualsCircular, Instructiions, Gudielines, Manuals.    Reasons for administrative measureTo clarify or consolidate existing rulesTo clarify or consolidate existing rulesOrganisational measure - expected results in terms of resources      NeutralIncreased resourcesDate of organisational measure16/12/201525/09/2015Expected result of operational measureEnhanced coordination and Enhanced ex-post controlsOperational measure - date07/05/2015Sectoral or HorizontalSectoralSectoralSectoralSectoralSectoralSectors concernedExpenditure -Cohesion policy Expenditure - Cohesion policyExpenditure - Cohesion policy Revenue - Tax FraudExpenditure - AgricultureSectors addressed by measure against corruption in public procurementPublic sector (including political sphere)Other measures preventing corruption in public procurementThe arrangement prevents corruption in relation to applications for payment of aid and does not concern public procurement.DENMARK   (DK)MEASURES 
 
 
26 

Working group for the federal government and federal state paying agents for fraud prevention in the agricultural sector. Preparation of guidance for the federal government and federal state paying agents for implementing fraud guidelines in the agricultural sector. In many countries, this guidance will also be applied within the context of fraud prevention in the fisheries sector (European Maritime and Fisheries Fund, EMFF).On 26  November 2015, the Prevention of Corruption Law (Gesetz zur Bekämpfung  der Korruption) entered into force in Germany (see BGBl. I [Federal Law Gazette] No 46, page 2025 et seq.). This resulted in changes to the German Criminal Code (Strafgesetzbuch, StGB) in the area of corruption offences inter alia. Conducting a self-assessment and developing a strategy for proportionate anti-fraud measures in accordance with Article 125(4), (c) of Regulation (EU) No 1303/2013. Anti-fraud and anti-corruption strategy, including fraud risk assessment of all European Regional Development Fund measures, and guidelines for intermediate bodies combating fraud and corruption.Self-assessment of the risks of fraud and corruption in the ERDF Saarland 2014 - 2020 operational programme.Anti-fraud cyclePrevention and DetectionInvestigation and prosecutionPreventionPrevention; Detection; Investigation and prosecution and Recovery and sanctionPrevention MeasuresNew AdministrativeAmendment LegislativeUpdate AdministrativeNew Administrative and Update OperationalNew and Up-date (Administrative and Operational)Criminal sanctions*Criminal sanctions: new (indicates that no sanctions were foreseen before)Monitoring/desk checks & On the spot checks & Investigation OTHER: Coordination of measures in the area of fraud prevention.Competence; Inter- agency cooperationOTHER:Risk assessment in the areas of: selection by the managing authority, implementation of the programme and auditing of activities, certificates and payments as well as direct procurement by the managing authoritiesTo clarify or consolidate existing rulesCross-cutting measure, multi-agency measure/measure with impact on OTHER: Coordination of a uniform application of measures in the area of fraud Prevention*Cross-cutting measure:Taking into account all the authorities and bodies involved in the shared management of federal government-ESF funds, a self-assessment for investigating the potential risks faced and a strategy Expected result of operational measureEnhnced coordination; Enhanced information flow and Targeting of checks Enhanced information flow; Targeting of checks; Trageting of investigations and Enhanced ex-post controlsExpected result of organisational  measure: resourcesNeutral on resourcesType of act within administrative measureCirculaire/Circular, Instructions, Guidelines, ManualsRecommendationCirculaire/Circular, Instructions, Guidelines, ManualsExpected result of organisational  measure: resourcesBrief description of the legislative measureThe term ‘European official’ was introduced into German criminal law. Both taking bribes and accepting advantages from and giving bribes and advantages to European officials Legislative Act - numberPrevention of Corruption Law (see BGB1. I No 46, page 2025 et seq.) Legislative Act - date26/11/2015Date30/11/201514/08/2015Legislation - type of ActLaw/ActNature of the measureSectoralHorizontal SectoralHorizontal SectoralSectors concerned Expediture- Agriculture and Expediture-FisheriesExpenditure-Cohesion policyExpenditure-Cohesion policyCorruption within PPPublic sector (including political sphere)Public sector (including political sphere) and Private sectorPublic sector (including political sphere) and Private sectorMesures taken in the fight against corruption in PPOTHER: Prevention by extending the Criminal Code to cover such cases.Measures to prevent corruption amongst personnel, including management and Measures to improve the effectiveness of control and auditMeasures to improve the effectiveness of management og the PP; Measures to prevent corruption amongst personnel, including management and Measures to improve the efftectiveness of control and auditGERMANY (DE)MEASURESScope of legislative measure Scope of administrative measure Managment of fundsMonitoring/desk checks & On the spot checks & Audit checklist and RecoveryScope of organisational measure Scope of operational measureRisk indicators Reasons for legislative measureOTHER:In order to implement Articles 5, 9 and 11 of the Council of Europe's Criminal Law Convention on Corruption (ETS No 173), a more comprehensive treatment than before was given to the sanctioning of the taking and giving of bribes involving foreign and international officials, as well as other employees, judges and soldiers.  In this context,the criminal offences of taking and giving bribes were also extended to cover European officials, which went beyond the existing German legal requirements (Sections 331 and 333 StGB).Reasons of administrative measureTo clarify or consolidate existing rules and To enhance existing measureIT tools ('IT data feeding', Other IT); Web reporting/Hotline and Risk indicators 
 
27 

AFCOS activity: improving the cooperation between implementers of support and the investigating authorities - regular joint seminars, which provide a place for sharing experiences, case studies.Raising awareness of corruption: 1) training undertakings, local government officials and the public; 2) opening a hotline, so that public procurement and other problems can be passed on anonymously.Fraud risk assessment - developing the risk management systems in the implementing bodies and managing authority.Tax area: implementing the VATSUM system (VAT returns, automatic comparison of transactions over EUR 1 000 and the person's background) to facilitate the work of the inspectors.Anti-fraud cycleFraud prevention; Fraud detection; Fraud investigation and prosecution; Recovery and Sanctionfraud preventionFraud prevention; Fraud detection; Fraud investigation and prosecution; Recovery and SanctionDetection; Investigation and prosecution; Recovery and sanction MeasuresUp-dateUpdateUpdateNewScope of organisational measure Competence; Inter-agency cooperation; General trainings; Fraud awareness trainings; Simplification of procedures; Improvement of coooperationCompetenceCompetence; Inter-agency cooperation; General trainings; Fraud awareness trainings, Simplification of proceduresScope of operational measureWeb reporting/Hotline; Risk indicators; Integrity and transparency measureIT tools; Flagging practice; Risk indicators; Structured cooperation with law enforcementIT tools; Flagging practice; Risk indicatorsType of act  within administrative measure    Reasons for administrative measureOrganisational measure - expected results in terms of resources      NeutralNeutralNeutralDate of organisational measure15/11/201530/11/201515/10/2015Expected result of operational measureEnhanced information flowTargeting of checks; Enhanced ex-ante controlsEnhanced information flow;Targeting of checks and Targeting of investigationsOperational measure - date15/10/201501/04/2014Sectoral or HorizontalHorizontalHorizontalSectoralSectoralSectors concernedExpenditure - Agriculture; Expenditure - Cohestion policyRevenue - Customs; Revenue - Tax Fraud; Sectors addressed by measure against corruption in public procurement Public and Private sectorOther measures preventing corruption in public procurementMeasures addressing transparency in public procurement; Measures to prevent corruption amonst personnel, including management; Measrues addressing transparency of companies participating in puiblic procurementESTONIA   (EE)MEASURES 
 
 
28 

The   introduction  of National Law, namely  Statutory  Instrument No. 93   of 2015, European  Union (Direct Support  Rural  Development Schemes) Offences  and Control Regulations  2015. The   Statutory Instrument sets  out the powers of authorised officers  and details offences and penalty provisions in relation  to measures funded by   the EAFRD co-funded  Rural  Development Programme.Taxation - VAT reverse charge for supplies of electricity and gas  and electricity and gas  certificates. The   reverse  charge makes  the recipient rather that the supplier liable  to account for the VAT on   supplies.  This ensures that  the opportunity to generate significant  false  repayment claims  inthe sector is eliminated.VAT - Publication of cancellation of VAT number and  notification to suppliers of cancellation  of a VAT number.    Where it is necessary for the protection of the  revenue the  Revenue Commissioners may  publish the fact  that  a persons VAT number  has been cancelled  and may  advise that  person's supplier of the fact.Anti-fraud cycleFraud prevention; Fraud detection; Fraud investigation and prosecution; Recovery and SanctionPreventionPrevention MeasuresNew legislationNew legislationNew legislationScope of legislationPowers; Financial penalties; (new) Criminal sanctionsAlternative VAT accountingPowers    Reasons for legislative measureTo clarify or consolidate existing rules; To enforce the rules in line with developments in EU lawTo  bring optional anti-fraud  measures in  the VAT Directive  into  domestic legislation.To  prevent the fraudulent  use of VAT numbers to  acquire  goods VAT free.Breif description of the legislative measureThe   legislative measure takes  the  form of a Statutory  Instrument (SI)  which was   signed into Irish  Law  on   3rd  March 2015.  The   SI sets  out the powers of authorised officers  engaged in carrying out inspections on   projects  and beneficiaries funded under the  European Agricultural Fund for  Rural Development Programme, Axis  3  and Axis  4 Taxation - VAT reverse charge for supplies of electricity and gas  and electricity and gas  certificates. The   reverse  charge makes  the recipient rather than the supplier liable  to account for the VAT on   supplies.  This ensures that  the opportunity to generate significant  false  repayment claims  in the sector is eliminated. (cid:10)Where a  VAT number has  been cancelled, the Revenue Commissioners  may, for the protection  of the Exchequer, notify the person's suppliers of the cancellation of the person's VAT number and  may  also publish the fact that the number  has been cancelled.Legislation - Type of ActLaw/ActLaw/ActLaw/ActLegislative Act - numberS. I. No. 93 of 2015Finance Bill 2015Finance Bill 2015Legislative Act - date03/03/201522/10/201522/10/2015Sectoral or HorizontalSectoralSectoralSectoralSectors concernedExpenditure - AgricultureRevenue - Tax FraudRevenue - Tax FraudIRELAND    (IE)MEASURES 
 
 
29 

ESTABLISHMENT OF THE GENERAL SECRETARIAT AGAINST CORRUPTION/DESIGNATION OF THE GREEK AFCOSThe responsibilities of the General Secretariat Against Corruption (ΓΕ.Γ.ΚΑ.Δ.) involve ensuring the effectiveness of the national anti-corruption strategy, focusing on the coordination of the control bodies and the effectiveness of their actions, and providing relevant guidelines and recommendations. It has been designated as the competent authority for the coordination of the fight against fraud (AFCOS). It develops coordinated action programmes and monitors their implementation through the audit and enforcement mechanisms and the administrative bodies.PROCEDURES FOR THE PREVENTION AND FIGHT AGAINST FRAUD IN THE MANAGEMENT AND CONTROL SYSTEM (MCS) of the NSRF 2014-2020.Provision is made for the following procedures under the MCS: i) 'fraud risk assessment', based on the EU fraud risk assessment tool, ii) the examination of indications of fraud and a report of suspicions of fraud, where an irregularity involving dolus eventualis is detected, iii) preventive controls and checks to prevent and detect irregularities, including those which show evidence of fraud, and iv) complaints.CRIME POLICY PROGRAMME (Hellenic Policy)                 In the 2015-2019 Crime Policy Programme (a text that establishes the strategic guidelines), the fight against financial crime is one of the main priorities of the Hellenic Police, for which special objectives are set CREATION OF MOBILE CONTROL UNITS by Decision of the Secretariat-General for Public Revenue (GGDE) (Δ.ΟΡΓ.Α. 1094448 ΕΞ2015/10-7-15, Government Gazette Β 1574/27 July 2015)ADOPTION OF ADMINISTRATIVE MEASURES IN THE FRAMEWORK OF THE RDA NATIONAL ACTION PLAN The measure aims to lower the error rate in the Rural Development Programme, in accordance with which an improvement in the project selection procedures in the public works measures of the RDP has been introduced, involving the use of comparative assessment and of programmed cyclical restricted invitations, instead of the direct assessment applied in the 2007-2013 programming period. It should be noted that the above-mentioned improved procedure has been included in the relevant measures of the approved 2014-2020 RDPAnti-fraud cyclePrevention and DetectionPrevention; Detection; Investigation and prosecution and Recovery and sanctionPrevention; Detection and Investigation and prosecutionPrevention; Detection and Investigation and prosecutionPrevention MeasuresNew and Amendment Legislation; New Organisational and New OperationalNew and Update Update Admninistrative and Update Organisational  New Organisational and New OperationalNew and Update Package of measuresLegislative; Organisational and Operational AdministrativeAdmninistrative and OrganisationalOrganisational and OperationalAdministrativeEligibility criteria;Monitoring/desk checks; On the spot checks;  Investigation; Irregularities reporting; Recovery Monitoring/desk checks; On the spot checks; InvestigationOTHER:Since the measure concerns all the procedures of the Management and Control System, in addition to the above fields, it also covers the assessment of fraud risks (composition of assessment teams and internal cooperation network), preventive checks on procurement approvals and allocation approvals and amendment of the legal obligation, all the checks by the Managing Authorities of the Programmes and inspection by the Certifying Authority, and also investigating any evidence of fraud and complaintsOTHER:Specific objectives: to combat the illegal subsidies taken from national and European resources, fraud with regard to tax evasion, international fraud, the smuggling of petroleum and tobacco products and the illegal handling of counterfeit goods and copyright products. In order to achieve these objectives, individual actions are taken: cooperation with the Ministry of Economic Affairs in the field of the collection and analysis of data on financial fraud and fraud associated with tax evasion, cooperation and joint action with the Financial and Economic Crime Unit (SDOE) and informing the Commission on money laundering (FIU) where applicableScope of operational measureWeb reporting/Hotline; Increased number of checks; Structured cooperation with law enforcement; Structured cooperation with judicial authoritiesWeb reporting/Hotline; Increased number of checks To clarify or consolidate existing rules;To enhance existing measureExpected result of operational measureEnhanced coordination; Enhanced cooperation; Enhanced information flow; Targeting of checks; Targeting of investigations; Enhanced ex-ante controls; Enhanced ex-post controls                                                                              OTHER:Removal of legislative overlaps.Enhanced coordination; Targeting of checks; Targeting of investigations; Enhanced ex-ante controls; Enhanced ex-post controls                                                                              Expected result of organisational  Increased resourcesNeutral on resourcesIncreased resourcesType of act within administrative measureCirculaire/circular, Instructions; Guidelines; ManualsCirculaire/circular, Instructions; Guidelines; ManualsAction planGREECE (GR)MEASURESScope of legislative measure Competences and PowersOTHER: Project selection proceduresScope of organisational measure Reorganisation of existing bodies; Competence; Inter- agency cooperation; Fraud awareness trainings; Simplification of procedures Inter- agency cooperation; General trainingsReorganisation of existing bodies and CompetenceScope of administrative measure  Reasons for legislative measureTo clarify or consolidate existing rules; To remedy flaws and To enforce the rules in line with developments in EU lawReasons of administrative measureOTHER: The need to introduce the above procedures for the prevention and fight against fraud in the MCS of the new 2014-2020 programming period results from both the European institutional framework, which raises the issue of fraud as an obligation on the Member States and the Managing Authorities, and from the National Strategy Against Fraud in the structural actions and the related action plan implemented. The MCS is addressed to the Managing Authorities and the Certifying Authority and constitutes the regulatory framework governing the implementation of the operational programmes for 2014-2020.To clarify or consolidate existing  rules and  To enhance existing  measure 
 
 
30 

ESTABLISHMENT OF THE GENERAL SECRETARIAT AGAINST CORRUPTION/DESIGNATION OF THE GREEK AFCOSThe responsibilities of the General Secretariat Against Corruption (ΓΕ.Γ.ΚΑ.Δ.) involve ensuring the effectiveness of the national anti-corruption strategy, focusing on the coordination of the control bodies and the effectiveness of their actions, and providing relevant guidelines and recommendations. It has been designated as the competent authority for the coordination of the fight against fraud (AFCOS). It develops coordinated action programmes and monitors their implementation through the audit and enforcement mechanisms and the administrative bodies.PROCEDURES FOR THE PREVENTION AND FIGHT AGAINST FRAUD IN THE MANAGEMENT AND CONTROL SYSTEM (MCS) of the NSRF 2014-2020.Provision is made for the following procedures under the MCS: i) 'fraud risk assessment', based on the EU fraud risk assessment tool, ii) the examination of indications of fraud and a report of suspicions of fraud, where an irregularity involving dolus eventualis is detected, iii) preventive controls and checks to prevent and detect irregularities, including those which show evidence of fraud, and iv) complaints.CRIME POLICY PROGRAMME (Hellenic Policy)                 In the 2015-2019 Crime Policy Programme (a text that establishes the strategic guidelines), the fight against financial crime is one of the main priorities of the Hellenic Police, for which special objectives are set CREATION OF MOBILE CONTROL UNITS by Decision of the Secretariat-General for Public Revenue (GGDE) (Δ.ΟΡΓ.Α. 1094448 ΕΞ2015/10-7-15, Government Gazette Β 1574/27 July 2015)ADOPTION OF ADMINISTRATIVE MEASURES IN THE FRAMEWORK OF THE RDA NATIONAL ACTION PLAN The measure aims to lower the error rate in the Rural Development Programme, in accordance with which an improvement in the project selection procedures in the public works measures of the RDP has been introduced, involving the use of comparative assessment and of programmed cyclical restricted invitations, instead of the direct assessment applied in the 2007-2013 programming period. It should be noted that the above-mentioned improved procedure has been included in the relevant measures of the approved 2014-2020 RDPBrief description of the legislative measureThe General Secretariat Against Corruption was established pursuant to Article 6 of Law 4320/2015 (Government Gazette Α 29/19 March 2015) and is a public service under the competent Deputy Minister for Justice, Transparency and Human Rights, in accordance with Presidential Decrees 71 and 73/15. It is defined as the competent authority for coordinating the fight against fraud (AFCOS), in accordance with Article 325 of the Treaty on European Union and within the meaning of Article 3(4) of Regulation (EU, EURATOM) No 883/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 September 2013.Legislative Act - numberLaw 4320/2015 (Government Gazette Α 29/19 March 2015)Law 4325/2015 (Government Gazette Α 47/11 May 2015)Legislative Act - date19/03/2015DateOrganisational: 19/03/2015 Operational: 19/03/2015Organisational: 12/12/2014Organisationa and Operational: 01/10/2015Legislation - type of ActLaw/ActNature of the measureHorizontalSectoralHorizontalSectoralSectoralSectors concerned Expenditure - Cohesion policyRevenue -Customs and Revenue- Tax fraudExpenditure AgricultureCorruption within PPPublic sector (including political sphere)Mesures taken in the fight against corruption in PPMeasures to improve the effectiveness of control and audit                                                                                   OTHER: Since its inception, the General Secretariat Against Corruption has worked in close cooperation with the Single Public Procurement Authority on matters concerning corruption and fraud. This authority processes legislation for public procurement, transposing the relevant EU DirectivesCommentsADDITIONAL MEASURES: Within its area of competence, the General Secretariat Against Corruption carries out the operational control of the Financial Police, the Financial and Economic Crime Unit, the internal control departments of the Ministries, and the  Health and Welfare Services Inspectorate, and coordinates and supervises their activity, setting the priorities for their control activities and entrusting to them the performance of coordinated or individual checks and, together with the jointly responsible Ministers, appointing the SDOE Special Secretary and the Heads of the Services referred to in this Article.In the above context, mixed audit teams have been created with the participation of the Financial Police, the SDOE, the Coast Guard, the customs authorities and the Directorate for Internal Affairs of the Secretariat-General for Public Revenue under the coordination of the General Secretariat Against Corruption.GREECE (GR) (continue) MEASURES 
 
 
31 

Establishment of the Office of Asset Recovery and Management.  This is a new body, integrated into the General State Administration to assist the Judiciary, which is responsible for (1) locating, (2) recovering, (3) preserving, (4) administering and (5) realising/disposing of effects, assets, instruments and profits from criminal activities committed as part of organised crime.Reform of the Penal Code to strengthen penalties for offences of corruption in public administration.Conclusion of the Cooperation Agreement between the General State Audit Body (Intervención General de la Administración del Estado - IGAE) and the General Council of Notaries (Consejo General del Notariado - CGN). The Agreement aims to allow the IGAE access to the CGN's database, which contains information regarding all transactions recorded by notarial deed in Spain.  This information may be used by the IGAE to perform its duties of inspecting and fighting against fraud, at both national level and with respect to the financial interests of the EU.Granting of legal status to the National Anti-Fraud Coordination Service (Servicio Nacional de Coordinación Antifraude - AFCOS).Strengthening of the ex ante checks carried out by IGAE bodies to physically verify the effective completion of works, services and acquisitions financed by public funds and to check whether they match the content of the corresponding contract or order.Anti-fraud cycleRecovery and SanctionRecovery and Sanction  Investigation and ProsecutionPrevention; DetectionFraud detection MeasuresNew legislationAmendmentNew New legislationAmendmentScope of legislationRecovery(more) Criminal sanctions, Time barring (more)CompetencesControl mechanisms Reasons for legislative measureTo remedy flawsTo remedy flawsTo clarify or consolidate existing rules; To remedy flawsTo clarify or consolidate existing rules; To remedy flawsBreif description of the legislative measureThe main aim of this measure is (1) to combine into one single body the duties of locating criminal assets (performed up to now by the Ministry of the Interior) and administering and realising/disposing of these assets (performed up to now by a number of judicial bodies in an uncoordinated way), and (2) to ensure that these duties are assigned to a specialised technical body focusing solely on the performance of these duties and staffed by qualified technical personnel, to guarantee that these duties are carried out efficiently and effectivelyEssentially, (1) it provides for a general increase in penalties specifically disqualifying offenders from holding public employment or office, (2) for the most serious offences it adds a penalty specifically disqualifying offenders from exercising their right to stand as a candidate (as an additional penalty, not an alternative one), (3) it includes the possibility of denying parole if the offender has avoided discharging financial liabilities or repairing the financial damage caused to the government, and (4) it extends the limitation period for certain offences in the most serious cases.Legal status has been granted to the National Anti-Fraud Coordination Service and tits basic duties have been regulated, two issues which have so far been included in a regulatory instrument (Royal Decree 802/2014). As well as regulating the Service, it sets out certain aspects necessary for it to perform its duties (providing for an Advisory Board, establishing a legal obligation to cooperate with the Service and giving the Service the same access to information on cases under investigation as OLAF).Numerous issues are clarified in order to make the ex ante physical checks more efficient.  Specifically: (1) activities in preparation for the physical checks, (2) assistance from technical advisers, (3) content and scope of the activities to be performed during the physical checks, (4) demarcation of the responsibilities of individuals involved in the checks, (5) results of the checks and their impact on the processing of payment files, (6) follow-up of deficiencies detected and the corrective measures proposed.Legislation - Type of ActDecreeLaw/ActLaw/ActDecisionLegislative Act - numberRoyal Decree 948/2015 of 23 October 2015 regulating the Office of Asset Recovery and Management.Organic Law 1/2015 of 30 March 2015 amending Organic Law 10/1995 of 23 November 1995 on the Criminal Code.Twenty-fifth additional provision of the General Subsidies Act 38/2003 of 17 November 2003, introduced by paragraph four of the seventh final provision of Law 40/2015 of 1 October 2015 on the legal system for the public sector.The above measures are set out in two additional pieces of legislation:  (1) Royal Decree 109/2015 of 20 February 2015 amending Royal Decree 2188/1995 of 28 December 1995 implementing the IGAE's internal control scheme, and (2) the Resolution of 14 July 2015 of the Legislative Act - date23/10/201530/03/201502/10/201514/07/2015Scope of operational measureIT tools; Structured cooperation with other public and private entities that may have access to information Expected result of operational measureEnhanced cooperation;Enhanced information flow; Targeting of checks; Enhanced ex-post controls Operational measure - date29/07/2015Sectoral or HorizontalSectoralSectoralSectoralHorizontalSectors concerned Expenditure - Agriculture; Expenditure - Fisheries; Expenditure - Cohesion policy; Expenditure - Centralised direct management; expenditure - Migration and asylumExpenditure - Agriculture; Expenditure - Fisheries; Expenditure - Cohesion policy; Expenditure - Centralised direct management; expenditure - Migration and asylumExpenditure - Agriculture; Expenditure - Fisheries; Expenditure - Cohesion policy; Expenditure - Migration and asylumSectors addressed by measure against corruption in public procurement Public and Private sectorPublic sector (including political sphere)Public sector (including political sphere)Other measures preventing corruption in public procurementMeasures aimed at recovering assets derived from illegal activities, including but not limited to those concerned by public procurement.Measures to strengthen penalties against corruption. This measure is not confined to public procurement, but extends to any sector of public administration in which it is possible to commit corruption offences.Measures to improve the effectiveness of control and auditSpain  (ES)MEASURES 
 
32 

Action to combat the illicit trade in tobacco products + legislative measure: Act authorising the ratification of the World Health Organisation (WHO) Protocol to Eliminate the Illicit Trade in Tobacco Products, signed in Geneva on 10 January 2013.Traditional own resources + package of measures: instruction on notifying the European Commission of cases of fraud or irregularity involving an amount of traditional own resources compromised or evaded in excess of €10 000 (OWNRES-Web).Customs mutual assistance + administrative measure: framework instruction on the management, handling and follow-up of mutual assistance cases (MA cases). Exchanges of information on customs inspections and risks + administrative measure: framework instruction on the management, handling and follow-up of RIF (Risk Information Form) messages.Anti-fraud cyclePreventionrecovery and sanctionPrevention ; Detection ; Investigation and prosecutionPrevention and Detection MeasuresNewUpdate Administratinve; New Organisational and Operational UpdateNewPackage of measuresLegislativeAdmnistrative; Organisational and OperationalAdministrativeAdministrativeRecovery Monitoring/desk checks; On the spot checks; Investigation; Irregularities reporting OTHER: The OWNRES framework instruction allows more rigorous input and follow-up of OWNRES reports. It should also ensure that the data entered is reliable and thus give a more complete, faithful and accurate picture of the facts in cases of fraud and irregularity. As a result, both the follow-up of OWNRES reports and studies and analyses based on information contained in the database should be more reliableOTHER:The instruction on mutual assistance cases contributes to improving the effectiveness of measures to combat fraud, especially cross-border fraud, and,following potential enhancement, to boosting the exchange of intelligence between Member States and with the Commission, thus helping to strengthen the Community anti-fraud mechanism.IT tools ('IT data feeding', Other IT)OTHER:Creation and sharing of OWNRES report follow-up logs. Creation of an OWNRES dedicated computer support chain within the DGDDI to identify potential malfunctions and handle 'job' queries.To clarify or consilidate existing rules; To enhance existing measure and Cross- cutting measure, multi-agency measure/ measure with impact on various bodiesTo clarify or consilidate existing rules; To enhance existing measure and Cross- cutting measure, multi-agency measure/ measure with impact on various bodiesTo clarify or consilidate existing rules; To enhance existing measure and Cross- cutting measure, multi-agency measure/ measure with impact on various bodiesCross-cutting: On 21 April 2015 the DGDDI (Directorate-General of Customs and Indirect Taxes) circulated an instruction to its departments clarifying their role in recording in OWNRES cases of fraud or irregularity involving amounts of TOR compromised or evaded in excess of €10 000. The instruction set up a network of correspondents in each department concerned, assigned roles in the creation and updating of reports, reiterated the statutory deadlines and organised oversight of the arrangements by the DG (annual survey of correspondents, audit of reports and comparison with the information in the legal and accounting databases).Cross- cutting: On 8.1.2015, the DGDDI drew up and distributed to its departments an instruction on the management, handling and follow-up of mutual assistance cases. The instruction sets out the roles of the different customs departments concerned in conducting risk analyses, distributing inspection instructions, preparing master-lists, carrying out inspections and investigations, establishing and implementing profiles for the selection of customs declarations, and providing feedback in the form of data and results to OLAF. It indicates the MA case instruction deadlines.Cross- cutting: On 7.5.2015, the DGDDI drew up and distributed to its departments an instruction on the management, handling and follow-up of RIF messages. This instruction sets out the policy on authorisation of customs officers, the rules on creating RIF messages and handling messages issued by the other Member States, and the roles of the various customs departments.FRANCE (FR)MEASURESScope of legislative measure Definition of a specific topicReasons of administrative measureScope of administrative measure OTHER:The instruction contributes to organising exchanges of information relating to customs controls and risks between EU Member States' customs offices in order to ensure consistency in the handling of RIF messages within the EU.Scope of organisational measure Scope of operational measure Reasons for legislative measureOTHER: At the beginning of May 2015, the draft Act authorising the ratification of the Protocol was submitted to the National Assembly, following adoption by the Council of Ministers on 29 April 2015. The text was unanimously adopted by the National Assembly on 17 September 2015 and by the Senate on 14 October 2015OTHER: Appointment of four OWNRES correspondents in each Regional Directorate of Customs and Indirect Taxes to be responsible for the entry and follow-up of OWNRES reports: one post-holder and one deputy in each department to deal with litigation, and one post-holder and one deputy in each accounts department 
 
33 

Action to combat the illicit trade in tobacco products + legislative measure: Act authorising the ratification of the World Health Organisation (WHO) Protocol to Eliminate the Illicit Trade in Tobacco Products, signed in Geneva on 10 January 2013.Traditional own resources + package of measures: instruction on notifying the European Commission of cases of fraud or irregularity involving an amount of traditional own resources compromised or evaded in excess of €10 000 (OWNRES-Web).Customs mutual assistance + administrative measure: framework instruction on the management, handling and follow-up of mutual assistance cases (MA cases). Exchanges of information on customs inspections and risks + administrative measure: framework instruction on the management, handling and follow-up of RIF (Risk Information Form) messages.Expected result of operational measureEnhanced coordination; Enhanced information flowExpected result of organisational  measure: resourcesOTHER:Better follow-up and better updating of OWNRES reports through a clear and precise division of responsibilities.Type of act within administrative measureCirculaire/circular, Instructions, Guidelines, Manuals Circulaire/circular, Instructions, Guidelines, Manuals Circulaire/circular, Instructions, Guidelines, ManualsBrief description of the legislative measureLegislative Act - numberAct No 2015-1350Legislative Act - date26/10/2015Date21/04/201508/01/201507/05/2015Legislation - type of ActLaw/ActNature of the measureSectoralSectoralSectoralSectoralSectors concerned Revenue - CustomsRevenue - CustomsRevenue - CustomsRevenue - CustomsFRANCE (FR) (continued)MEASURES 
 
  
34 

Guidelines on  management of Irregularities for the period 2007-2013 and 2014- 2020Protocol on cooperation and information exchange between the ministry of finance of the Republic of Croatia and the Ministry of Interior of the Republic of CroatiaProtocol on cooperation between the ministry of finance of the Republic of Croatia and state attorney office of the Republic of Croatia in the context of protecting EU financial interests.Anti-fraud cyclePrevention & DetectionPreventionPrevention MeasuresUpdate AdministrativeNew OperationalNew OperationalScope of operational measureStructured cooperation with law enforcementStructured cooperation with judicial authoritiesExpected result of operational measureEnhanced coordination; Enhanced cooperation and  Enhanced information flowEnhanced coordination; Enhanced cooperation and  Enhanced information flowExpected result of organisational  measure: resourcesType of act within administrative measureCirculaire/Circular, Instructions, Guidelines, ManualsDate24/03/201516/06/2015Nature of the measureSectoralSectoralSectoralSectors concerned Expenditure-Cohesion policyExpenditure -Agriculture; Expenditure-Fisheries and Expenditure-Cohesion policyExpenditure -Agriculture; Expenditure-Fisheries;  Expenditure-Cohesion policy and Expenditure - Centralised direct managementReasons of administrative measureTo enhance existing measureCROATIA (HR)MEASURESScope of administrative measure Irregularities reporting 
 
 
35 

Law No 69 of 27 May 2015 (Italian Official Gazette No 124 of 30 May 2015) on ‘Provisions on criminal offences against the public administration, and involving mafia-like organisations and false accounting’. This measure , the aim of which is to lay down harsher penalties for corruption, bribery and embezzlement, provides for a number of simultaneous amendments to the Civil Code to increase the penalties for false accounting for  publicly listed and other companies.Ministry of Agricultural, Food and Forestry Policy Decree of 20 March2015. (Official Gazette of the Italian Republic No 112  of 16 May 2015). Further measures on the simplification of CAP management 2014-2020. In particular Article 9 (Transitional measures on checking agricultural payments).Expenditure – Cohesion policyIn 2015 an instruction was issued to Guardia di Finanza divisions on regulations resulting from the extension - within the meaning of Article 29(1)(a) of Law No 161 of 30 October 2014, amending Article 25 of Legislative Decree No 83 of 22 June 2012- of anti-money laundering powers, under Article 8 c. 4 (a and b) of Legislative Decree No 231/2007, to the Special Unit for Public Spending and Combating EU Fraud for the purposes of checking payments from the EU budgetThe Department of National and Community Planning for operational units was set up by Decree of the Director General No 8133 of 8 July 2014,  with the relevant assignment of activities  This decree instituted a new operational unit entitled 'Management of Irregularities and Recovery", to which a team of experts was assigned to perform support activities for the prevention of irregularities unit for operations concerning the Calabria ROP, ERDF 2007/2013Anti-fraud cyclePrevention; Investigation and prosecution; Recovery and sanctionDetection; Investigation and prosecutionPrevention; DetectionPrevention; Detection;Investigation and prosecution Prevention & Detection MeasuresAmendment NewUpdateNewUpdate Administrative, Update Organisational, Update OperationalPackage of measuresLegislationAdministrativeAdministrative and OperationalAdministrativeAdministrative; Organisational and OperationalRecovery; Financial penalties; Criminal sanctions and Time barring*Criminal sanctions: more (indicates that they have been increased) *Time barring: more ((indicates that they have been increased)Monitoring/desk checks; On the spot checks OTHER:Manual of checks on action plans eligible for fundingEdition: March 2015 - Edilizia ScolasticaScope of operational measureIT tools (“IT data  feeding”, “Other IT”); Flagging  practice IT tools (“IT data  feeding”, “Other IT”); Increased number of checks and Structured cooperation with law enforcement  To clarify or consolidate existing rules; To remedy flaws OTHER:To guarantee the implementation of recommendations addressed to Italy by international fraud prevention organisations on both preventive and repressive action on corruption. To increase the  suitability and deterrent effect of the custodial and financial criminal sanctions already in place for financial offences and organised crime, and make it easier to bring prosecutions for false accounting. To tackle time-barring of corruption offences.ITALY (IT)MEASURESScope of legislative measure Scope of organisational measure Reorganisation of existing  bodies; Competence; General trainings; Fraud  awareness trainings; Simplification of procedures  Scope of administrative measure Eligibility criteria; Monitoring/desk checks; Investigation and Irregularities reportingMonitoring/desk checks and InvestigationEligibility criteria; Management of funds; Monitoring/desk checks; On the spot checks; Audit checklist; Irregularities reporting;  Recovery  Reasons for legislative measure 
 
 
 
36 

Law No 69 of 27 May 2015 (Italian Official Gazette No 124 of 30 May 2015) on ‘Provisions on criminal offences against the public administration, and involving mafia-like organisations and false accounting’. This measure , the aim of which is to lay down harsher penalties for corruption, bribery and embezzlement, provides for a number of simultaneous amendments to the Civil Code to increase the penalties for false accounting for  publicly listed and other companies.Ministry of Agricultural, Food and Forestry Policy Decree of 20 March2015. (Official Gazette of the Italian Republic No 112  of 16 May 2015). Further measures on the simplification of CAP management 2014-2020. In particular Article 9 (Transitional measures on checking agricultural payments).Expenditure – Cohesion policyIn 2015 an instruction was issued to Guardia di Finanza divisions on regulations resulting from the extension - within the meaning of Article 29(1)(a) of Law No 161 of 30 October 2014, amending Article 25 of Legislative Decree No 83 of 22 June 2012- of anti-money laundering powers, under Article 8 c. 4 (a and b) of Legislative Decree No 231/2007, to the Special Unit for Public Spending and Combating EU Fraud for the purposes of checking payments from the EU budgetThe Department of National and Community Planning for operational units was set up by Decree of the Director General No 8133 of 8 July 2014,  with the relevant assignment of activities  This decree instituted a new operational unit entitled 'Management of Irregularities and Recovery", to which a team of experts was assigned to perform support activities for the prevention of irregularities unit for operations concerning the Calabria ROP, ERDF 2007/2013Expected result of operational measureEnhanced coordination; Enhanced information flow; Enhanced ex-ante controls; Enhanced ex-post controls   Enhanced coordination; Enhanced cooperation; Enhanced information flow; Targeting of checks; Enhanced ex-ante controls;  Enhanced ex-post controls  Expected result of organisational  measure: resourcesNeutral on resourcesType of act within administrative measureDecision, ResolutionCirculaire/circular, Instructions, Guidelines, ManualsCirculaire/circular, Instructions, Guidelines, Manuals  Circulaire/circular, Instructions, Guidelines, Manuals  Brief description of the legislative measureTo guarantee the implementation of recommendations addressed to Italy by international fraud prevention organisations on both preventive and repressive action on corruption. To increase the  suitability and deterrent effect of the custodial and financial criminal sanctions already in place for financial criminal offences and organised crime, and make it easier to bring prosecutions for false accounting.  To tackle time-barring of corruption offences.Legislative Act - numberLaw NO 69Legislative Act - date27/05/2015Date01/01/2015Legislation - type of ActLaw/ActNature of the measureHorizontalSectoralSectoralHorizontalSectoralSectors concerned Expenditure -AgricultureExpenditure - Cohesion policyExpenditure - Cohesion policyCorruption within PPPublic sector (including political sphere)Mesures taken in the fight against corruption in PP* Other measures preventing corruption in PP:The Public Prosecutor informs the national anti-corruption authority when a prosecution is brought on corruption charges, including in public tendering procedures. Oversight granted to the national anti-corruption authority of contracts not covered under the Public Procurement Code (contracts under Article 17 et seq. of Legislative Decree No 163/2006).To clarify or consolidate existing rulesTo clarify or consolidate existing rules and To enhance existing measureReasons of administrative measureTo clarify or consolidate existing rulesTo clarify or consolidate existing rulesITALY (IT)(continued)MEASURES 
 
37 

CYPRUS (CY)MEASURESIn 2015, the  Council of Ministers  has decided : 1)for public contracts of estimated value not less  than  €500.000 for services, €1.000.000 for supplies and €3.000.000 for  works, qualitative  control of the tender documents2)change of legislation regarding modifications on   public contracts. Furthermore Public  Proc.Dept selected to enact the provision for horizontal exclusion of ec.operators centrally  for better  mgt.Anti-fraud cyclePrevention MeasuresNewPackage of measuresLegislativeLegislative Act - numberCouncil of Ministers  Decisions -2015Legislative Act - date31/12/2015Legislation - type of ActDecisionNature of the measureHorizontalScope of legislative measure OTHER:For qualitative  control of the tender documents for public contracts of estimated value not less  than  €500K,€1.000K for supplies and  €3.000K for Works. For Modification  on   public contracts for all  authorities which until now  was   only to the central  government authorities. Horizontal exclusion of ec.operators for better  mgt. Reasons for legislative measureTo clarify or consolidate existing rules and To enforce the rules in line with developments in EU law 
 
38 

On  16   July  2015 the  Government (Cabinet of Ministers)  approved a new   mid-term policy  planning  document the Corruption Prevention and  Combating Guidelines for  2015-2020 describing the current situation  of Latvia’s anticorruption policy, defining problems  and stipulating tasks to be executed  by   various state institutions, implementation time frame for  individual  assignments, justification of the  assignment and overall policy results  to be expected  in certain  period of time.Cabinet regulations adopted regarding financial  control of ETC  2014-2020 programmes and  projects. Ministry of Welfare of Republic of Latvia has approved Guidelines for  the fraud prevention in  FEAD and Guidelines  for financial corrections in FEAD.Legislative Measure / Increase in fines The   Amendments  to  the  Public Procurement Law  and training: 1) entered into force on   4  June 2015, transposing the requirements of the Directive  2014/24/EU regarding amendments  to  the public  procurement contract;  2) entered into force 16   October 2014. According to  these  amendments  since 1  August  2015 inspection rules  of exclusion of tenders restricts a supplier to participate  in public procurement, that  have not passed the tax liability. The   Procurement Monitoring Bureau provides  trainingFraud prevention,  detection  and investigation: updated information  on   the website of the Ministry of Finance about the AFCOS and other institutions involved in protection  of EU's financial interests and information  for whistle-blowing;  exchange of best practices  in IT tools  with IT, DK,   BG and EL representatives, seminar organized  by   the AFCOS with the participation  of OLAF to  improve cooperation for on-the-spot checksAnti-fraud cyclePrevention; Detection; Investigation and prosecution and Recovery and sanctionPrevention; Detection and Recovery and sanctionRecovery and sanctionPreventionPrevention; Detection and  Investigation and prosecution MeasuresNew & Amendment Legislation; New & Amendment Administrative;New & Amendment Organisational    New Legislation and New AdministrationAmendmentAmendment Legislation and Update OrganizationalNew and update Organisational and New OperationalPackage of measuresLegislative; Admnistrative and OrganisationalLegislative and AdministrativeLegislative Legislative and Organisational Organisational and OperationalComptences; Powers; Definition of a specific topic; Other administratives penaltiesCriminal sanctionsOTHER:Legislation  measures shall  be applied also to following issues:  public officials, human  resource management  in public sector,  internal control standards, construction,  squandering, state aid, judiciary, abolition of administrative immunity, investment, education (corruption  and ethic topics in the state's  education system),  codes of ethic, illicit enrichment, proceeds of crime, financing of political  parties, lobbing, management  of funds*Criminal sanctions: more (indicates that they have been increased)Management of fundsManagement of fundsOTHER: Administrative  measures shall  be applied also to following issues:  human resource management  in public sector, conflict of interests,  public procurement, health  system, awareness raising activities,  asset declarations, transparency of public institutions,  private sector, sport organizations, informative materials,  embezzlement, political partiesOTHER:Fraud prevention, Financial correctionsCompetence; General trainingsCompetence; Inter-agency cooperation and General trainingsOTHER:Training  and awareness raising activities  for human  resource  managers in public sector,  public officials, public  procurement experts, employees of health sector,  judges, prosecutors, State Revenue  Service inspectors, entrepreneurs, students, teachers. Special training for employees of  EU  funds controlling institutions.Guidelines  2015-2020 foresee  to  draw up   a review regarding the extension of the  competence of  KNAB and allocating  the right  to investigate  corruption crimes in private sector.  (Currently corruption Scope of operational measureStructured cooperation with law enforcement OTHER:Strengthened cooperation  with OLAF To clarify or consolidate existing  rules; To remedy flawsOTHER:One   of the objectives included in the Guidelines 2015-2020 is  to create and improve an independent  internal control system to limit  cases of corruption or defrauding of financial  resources, including the EU  and other foreign financial resources, in the public, municipal or private sector.To clarify or consolidate existing  rules; To enhance existing measure and Cross-cutting measure, multi-agency measure/ measure with impact on various bodies*Cross-cutting:In the Guidelines particular tasks are assigned to all  public institutions, e.g. State institutions and municipalities    shall  adopt and/or update their Anti-Corruption Action Plans, including risk  based anti-fraud  andanti-corruption measures to  prevent and detect  fraud in  the EU  funds and other foreign financial  assistance instruments, if  applicable. Mostly tasks are assigned for a single institution,  but there are tasks assigned to several institutions.OTHER:National anti-fraud  measures pursuant  to  Regulation (EU, EURATOM) No  966/2012; Article  125(4)(c) of the CPR;   Article  58(1) b) of Regulation (EU) No1306/2013; Article  32   (4)  c) of Regulation (EU) No  223/2014; Article  5  (4) of Regulation 514/2014. In 2015 analysis  of a risk  assessment was   caried  out and action (control)  plan drawn  up   for  reducing the fraud and corruption risks for the  2014-2020 ESIF and FEADScope of administrative measure LATVIA (LV)MEASURESScope of legislative measure Comptences and PowerOTHER:Amendments  to  the public  procurement contract;  Clarification  of exclusion rule for the tax debtsScope of organisational measure OTHER: The   Procurement  Monitoring  Bureau (PMB)   regularly organizes training  on   public procurement issues  and on   the  amendments to  the  Public Procurement Law,raising the competence of  institutions involved in EU  funds  management and the beneficiaries (In 2015  PMB participated in 34   training  seminars trainedtogether  1,820 participants). Reasons for legislative measureOTHER: To  determine appropriate actions for the institutions responsible for the ETC program in  the  new   programming periodOTHER: For the  implementation of the  recomendation in relation to the level of fines to  be increased  wich has been expressed in  the  conducted assessment of Latvian Phase 1  of  OECD's Working Group on   Bribery in International  Business Transactions To remedy flaws and To enforce the rules in line with developments in EU lawReasons of administrative measureTo clarify or consolidate existing  rules 
 
 
39 

On  16   July  2015 the  Government (Cabinet of Ministers)  approved a new   mid-term policy  planning  document the Corruption Prevention and  Combating Guidelines for  2015-2020 describing the current situation  of Latvia’s anticorruption policy, defining problems  and stipulating tasks to be executed  by   various state institutions, implementation time frame for  individual  assignments, justification of the  assignment and overall policy results  to be expected  in certain  period of time.Cabinet regulations adopted regarding financial  control of ETC  2014-2020 programmes and  projects. Ministry of Welfare of Republic of Latvia has approved Guidelines for  the fraud prevention in  FEAD and Guidelines  for financial corrections in FEAD.Legislative Measure / Increase in fines The   Amendments  to  the  Public Procurement Law  and training: 1) entered into force on   4  June 2015, transposing the requirements of the Directive  2014/24/EU regarding amendments  to  the public  procurement contract;  2) entered into force 16   October 2014. According to  these  amendments  since 1  August  2015 inspection rules  of exclusion of tenders restricts a supplier to participate  in public procurement, that  have not passed the tax liability. The   Procurement Monitoring Bureau provides  trainingFraud prevention,  detection  and investigation: updated information  on   the website of the Ministry of Finance about the AFCOS and other institutions involved in protection  of EU's financial interests and information  for whistle-blowing;  exchange of best practices  in IT tools  with IT, DK,   BG and EL representatives, seminar organized  by   the AFCOS with the participation  of OLAF to  improve cooperation for on-the-spot checksExpected result of operational measureEnhanced coordination; Enhanced cooperation and Enhanced information flowExpected result of organisational  measure: resourcesOTHER:Results of training  and awareness  raising activities  have indirect  impact  on resources.Currently there is  no   calculation  regarding the expected result  in terms ofresources if the  competence of  KNAB is extended.Neutral on resourcesNeutral on resourcesType of act within administrative measureOTHER:Tasks assigned  to particular institutions  shall be executed  by   elaboration of guidelines,regulations,reviews,analysis,as  well as legislative initiatives.  LV has taken over and approved an instrument of fraud risk  assessment for  ERDF, ESF,CF  (approval of specific  guidance for  assessment of fraud and corruption risk  and a template of risk register),for  the EMFF,EAFRD,EAGF-  risk management strategy  and instructions for filling  risk register and for  the  Asylum, Migration and Integration  Fund-Guidelines for application of effective  and proportionate  measures to  prevent risk  of fraud and corruption.Circulaire/circular, Instructions, Guidelines, Manuals Brief description of the legislative measureThe   Guidelines define precise  tasks  to be executed by   public institutions. Those tasks requiring to use legislative  measure will  be carried  out as amendments  of existing  laws or regulations  (Regulations of Cabinet of Ministers) or elaboration of new   laws, regulations  as well as recomendations or  methodology for particular issuesRegulations prescribes the procedures for ensuring of the financial  control of the projects  financed by   programmes of  “European Territorial Co-operation” for 2014-2020 and the  procedures  by   which reports  shall  be submitted regarding irregularities detected in  the implementation of the projects  financed by   the 2014-2020  programme for  “European Territorial Co-operation”  and the irregular expenditure recoveredOn  29   October 2015 Parliament  adopted the  Amendments  to  the  Criminal Law, which entered into  force on   3  December 2015,  where the  Criminal  Law  Article  41 provides to set  higher maximum   applicable fine sanctions: 1) for less serious crimes up   to 1000  minimum monthly wages, 2) for  a serious  crime up   to  2000 minimum  monthly wages, 3) for  the  most serious  crimes from 300 to  10000 minimum  monthly wagesLegislative Act - numberApproved  by   the  Cabinet Order No. 393 of  16   July 2015, publication  ref. LV, 138 (5456),  17.07.2015.,  OP  2015/138.7Regulation of the Cabinet of Ministers No  124 adopted  on   10.03.2015., publication reference LV,   60   (5378), 25.03.2015., OP  2015/60.7; Regulation of the Cabinet of Ministers No  526 adopted  on   15.09.2015, publication reference LV,   184 (5502),  21.09.2015.,  OP  2015/184.4The   Amendments  to  the  Criminal Law, publication reference LV,   227 (5545),19.11.2015., OP:   2015/227.4The   Amendments  to  the  Public Procurement Law, publication ref.  LV,   107 (5425),03.06.2015., OP:   2015/107.7;The   Amendments  to  the  Public Procurement Law, 02.10.2014. publication  ref. LV,204 (5264),  15.10.2014.,  OP:   2014/204.7Legislative Act - date16/07/201510/03/201529/10/201514/05/2015Date04/12/2015organisational: 11/06/2015 operational: 16/12/2016 Legislation - type of ActLaw/ActDecreeLaw/ActLaw/ActNature of the measureHorizontalSectoralHorizontalHorizontalHorizontalSectors concerned Expenditure - Cohesion policyCorruption within PPPublic sector (including political sphere) and Private  sectorPublic sector (including political sphere) and Private  sectorMesures taken in the fight against corruption in PPAddresing transparency in public  procurement; To improve the effectiveness of management of the public  procurement; To prevent corruption amongst personnel, including management; To addressing transparency of companies participating in public  procurement                                                                                      OTHER:The   Guidelines  2015-2020 foresee also following tasks:  provide training for procurement professionals  developing their capacity to identify potential illegal activities of the bidders such as formation of cartels.Analyse problems and prepare  recommendations regarding the monitoring of procurement contracts  related  to the law „On   Procurement for  the  Needs of Public Service Providers”.Analyse risks  of squandering and corruption risks  in „sub-threshold”procurements.Evaluate effectiveness  of the measures taken to  mitigate  the risk  of corruption.OTHER: Measures preventing corruption in public procurementBy  increasing the maximum   amount of  the  monetary fines for criminal offenses, effective,  proportionate and dissuasive criminal penalties are established to deter  persons from committing the offence, including corruption in public procurementCommentsKNAB - Corruption Prevention and  Combating Bureau  is  an independent anti-corruption institution  with comprehensive mandates: prevention of corruption,  countering corruption,  monitoring the financing of political parties  and education of public officials and the society about corruption, ethics  and respect  of law.LATVIA (LV) (continue)MEASURES 
 
   
40 

Resolution No XII-1537 of 10 March 2015 of the Seimas [Parliament] of the Republic of Lithuania approving the 2015–2025 Lithuanian National Anti-Corruption Programme. This Resolution approved the 2015–2025 Lithuanian National Anti-Corruption Programme, which provides for measures and activities to prevent corruption and fraud in the use of EU funds (paragraph 29.2.3 of the Programme). The 2015–2019 inter-institutional action plan for the implementation of the Programme was approved by Lithuanian Government Resolution No 648 of 17 June 2015.The procedure for the provision of information to the Lithuanian Ministry of Finance on pre-trial investigations relating to European Union structural fund projects by the Financial Crime Investigation Service under the Ministry of the Interior of the Republic of Lithuania and the Special Investigation Service of the Republic of Lithuania. These law-enforcement authorities inform the Ministry of Finance when a pre-trial investigation is launched (where this does not prejudice the course of the investigation), of procedural decisions relating to the investigation (e.g. where the case is referred for judicial proceedings), and of its conclusion.The EU structural funds website, www.esinvesticijos.lt,  which publishes all information relating to the administration and use of EU structural funds of interest to project promoters, potential applicants, EU structural fund administration authorities and the public, offers visitors the possibility of providing information anonymously on suspected casesof misuse of EU structural fund finances.Orders of the Minister for Agriculture amending Order No 3D-889 of 27 November 2014 of the Minister for Agriculture approving the methodology for detecting artificially created conditions for obtaining aid.Two orders were adopted in 2015 amending the methodology for detecting artificially created conditions for obtaining aid in line with Article 60 of Regulation (EU) No 1306/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2013 (circumvention clause).The internal procedures of the National Paying Agency under the Ministry of Agriculture were updated (the description of the procedure for transmitting information and receiving information from law-enforcement authorities), taking into account the Guidance Note of 26 February 2014 on Anti-fraud Measures as foreseen in the context of Accreditation Criteria.Anti-fraud cyclePreventionInvestigation and prosecution  DetectionPrevention; DetectionPrevention; Detection; Fraud investigation and prosecution MeasuresNew legislationUpdateNew AmendmentAmendmentScope of legislationPowersDefinition of a specific topic; Prevention or irrgularities and fraud; Protection of European Union and Lithuanian financial interestsDefinition of a specific topic; Prevention of irregularities and fraud, protection of European Union and Lithuanian financial interests Reasons for legislative measureTo enforce the rules in line with developments in EU lawTo clarify or consolidate existing rules; To remedy flaws; To enforce the rules in line with develpoments in EU law; Prevention of irregularities and fraud, Protection of European Union and Lithuanian Financial interestsTo clarify or consolidate existing rules; To remedy flaws; To enforce the rules in line with developments in EU lawBreif description of the legislative measureanti-corruption strategyThe methodology for detecting artificially created conditions for obtaining aid lays down criteria for identifying applicants or aid recipients who have artificially created conditions for obtaining aid under 2014–2020 Lithuanian rural development programme measures, with the aim of protecting the financial interests of the European Union and the Republic of Lithuania and preventing potential irregularities and cases of fraud.The description of the procedure for transmitting information and receiving information from law-enforcement authorities includes fraud prevention guidelines, indicating the action to be taken by staff at the National Paying Agency under the Ministry of Agriculture who are responsible for the administration of aid recipients' projects and who suspect instances of fraud in these projects. The guidelines also set out potential signs of fraud or a suspected criminal offence on the basis of the European Commission's Guidance Note of 26 February 2014 on Anti-fraud Measures as foreseen in the Legislation - Type of ActLaw/ActRegional law/decree/orderRegional law/decree/orderLegislative Act - numberNo XII - 1537Order No 3D-198 of 20 March 2015 and Order No 3D-330 of 24 April 2015 of the Lithuanian Minister for Agriculture.Order No BR1-297 of the Director of the National Paying Agency under the Ministry of AgricultureLegislative Act - date10/03/201524/04/201530/09/2015Scope of operational measureStructured cooperation with law enforcementWeb reporting/Hotline Expected result of operational Enhanced information flow;Targeting of checks Operational measure - date30/11/2015Sectoral or HorizontalSectoralSectoralSectoralSectoralSectoralSectors concernedExpenditure - Agriculture; Expenditure - Fisheries; Expenditure - Cohesion policy; Expenditure - Migration and asylum Expenditure - Cohesion policyExpenditure - Cohesion policy Expenditure - Fisheries; Expenditure - AgricultureExpenditure - Agriculture; Expenditure FisheriesLITHUANIA    (LT)MEASURES 
 
41 

FEDER  - Reporting procedure in case of suspected fraudFEDER  - Improving control checklistsFEDER  - Manual management and  control (point 1.8)FEAGA +  FEADER - Declaration of conflicts  of interests  in the agricultural sector,  WhistleblowingFEAGA +  FEADER - Anti fraud trainingAnti-fraud cycleFraud investigation and prosecution DetectionPreventionPrevention, DetectionPrevention; Detection MeasuresNewUpdateNew NewUpdateScope of administrative measureEligiblity criteria; On the spot checks; Penalty; Recovery; On the organisational side: clarifying existing rules and enhancing existing measuresReorganisation of existing bodies; Competence and Streamlining proceduresScope of operational measureStructured cooperation with judicial authoritiesIncreased number of checks Flagging practice; Increased number of checksFlagging practice, Risk indicators; Increased number of checksType of act  within administrative measureCircular, Instructions, Guidelines, Manuals    Reasons for administrative measureTo clarify or consolidate existing rules; to respect the principle of transparencyExpected result of operational measureEnhanced cooperation; Enhanced ex-post controlsTargeting of checks; Enhanced ex-post controlsEnhanced information flow;Targeting of checks; Enhanced ex-ante controls;  Enhanced ex-post controlsEnhanced coordination;Enhanced information flow;Targeting of checks and Enhanced ex-ante controlsTargeting of checks; Enhanced ex-ante controlsOperational measure - date30/09/201631/01/201531/10/201531/01/2015Sectoral or HorizontalSectoralSectoralSectoralSectoralSectoralSectors concernedExpenditure - Cohesion policy Expenditure - Cohesion policyExpenditure - Cohesion policy Expenditure - AgricultureExpenditure - AgricultureLUXEMBOURG    (LU)MEASURES 
 
 
  
42 

Liaison and information exchange with a view to more effective cooperation with bodies and authorities involved in auditing EU support, and improvement of “operational” cooperation (in individual cases)Liaison and information. In May 2015 the Hungarian Government adopted the National Anti-Corruption Programme, which constitutes its anti-corruption strategy for a four-year period. The anti-corruption strategy was drawn up by the National Protective Service, the Hungarian police department dealing with crime prevention and detection, and submitted to Hungary's Minister for the Interior for approval. The specific measures implementing the programme are set out in Government Decision No 1336/2015 published on 27 May 2015.Measures by the Agricultural and Rural Development Agency:Entry into force of Presidential Directive No 18/2015 of 21 May 2015 laying down the detailed rules governing the acceptance and examination/investigation of reports on abuses, irregularities and integrity and corruption risks within the organisation, integrity consultancy activities and the procedure for dealing with lobbyists;Follow-up training to DG AGRI's seminar on "Fraud in the Common Agricultural Policy" to be held at the Agency. The training material is to be made available to all Agency staff.Measures by the Agricultural and Rural Development Agency:Entry into force of Presidential Directive No 18/2015 of 21 May 2015 laying down the detailed rules governing the acceptance and examination/investigation of reports on abuses, irregularities and integrity and corruption risks within the organisation, integrity consultancy activities and the procedure for dealing with lobbyists;Follow-up training to DG AGRI's seminar on "Fraud in the Common Agricultural Policy" to be held at the Agency. The training material is to be made available to all Agency staff.Adoption of an anti-fraud strategy for the 2014-2020 programming period for the European Structural and Investment Funds (ESIF). Fraud risk assessment, management, and relevant procedures. Training in fraud prevention, with a view to knowledge-sharing. Themes: Introduction to the ESIF system (fraud and corruption prevention module), irregularity management, presentation of ARACHNE, professional ethics, integrity, prevention of corruption. Introduction to ARACHNE, development of risk scoring function in own IT system. Organisational restructuring, increase of the number of on-the-spot checks.Drafting of Act CXLIII of 2015 on public procurement. The purpose of the new Act is to transpose the new public procurement directives adopted by the EU legislature into Hungarian law. Anti-fraud cycleFraud investigation and prosecutionPrevention Prevention; DetectionPrevention; DetectionPrevention MeasuresUpdateNew legislation and amendment; update of administrative measure; up-dated organisational measureNew NewNewScope of legislationIncreasing the transparency of public procurement procedures and public access to data concerning those procedures.Act CXLIII of 2015 on public procurement is a framework law containing the basic rules on public procurement procedures and legal remedies. Reasons for legislative measureTo clarify or consolidate existing rules; To remedy flawsTo enforce the rules in line with developments in EU law; On 26 February 2014, the EU legislature adopted the new directives on public procurement, which the Member States are, in principle, to transpose into their national legislation by 18 April 2016.Breif description of the legislative measureAct CXLIII of 2015 on public procurement seeks to achieve the greatest possible transparency, fairness of competition and regularity of procurement procedures by ensuring more public visibility and greater transparency in the performance of contracts and traceability of payments. This is also in line with the objectives of the National Anti-Corruption Programme. The new directives on public procurement provide for considerably more flexible arrangements for public procurement procedures than the previous EU legislation. Therefore, rather than making comprehensive amendments to the existing legislation, the Hungarian legislature decided to enact a new Public Procurement Act.Legislation - Type of ActLaw/ActLaw/ActLegislative Act - numberAct of 2015 on public procurementAct CXLIII of 2015 on public procurement (hereinafter: Public Procurement Act), effective from 1 November 2015.Legislative Act - date02/11/201501/11/2015Scope of administrative measureManagement of funds; Monitoring/desk checks; Irregularities reportingAction plan for the ESIF anti-fraud strategy for the 2014-2020 programming period,fraud risk analysis and managementScope of operational measureStructured coperation with law enforcementIT tools; Risk indicators; Increased number of checksType of act  within administrative measureAction planAction planHUNGARY    (HU)MEASURES 
 
43 

Liaison and information exchange with a view to more effective cooperation with bodies and authorities involved in auditing EU support, and improvement of “operational” cooperation (in individual cases)Liaison and information. In May 2015 the Hungarian Government adopted the National Anti-Corruption Programme, which constitutes its anti-corruption strategy for a four-year period. The anti-corruption strategy was drawn up by the National Protective Service, the Hungarian police department dealing with crime prevention and detection, and submitted to Hungary's Minister for the Interior for approval. The specific measures implementing the programme are set out in Government Decision No 1336/2015 published on 27 May 2015.Measures by the Agricultural and Rural Development Agency:Entry into force of Presidential Directive No 18/2015 of 21 May 2015 laying down the detailed rules governing the acceptance and examination/investigation of reports on abuses, irregularities and integrity and corruption risks within the organisation, integrity consultancy activities and the procedure for dealing with lobbyists;Follow-up training to DG AGRI's seminar on "Fraud in the Common Agricultural Policy" to be held at the Agency. The training material is to be made available to all Agency staff.Measures by the Agricultural and Rural Development Agency:Entry into force of Presidential Directive No 18/2015 of 21 May 2015 laying down the detailed rules governing the acceptance and examination/investigation of reports on abuses, irregularities and integrity and corruption risks within the organisation, integrity consultancy activities and the procedure for dealing with lobbyists;Follow-up training to DG AGRI's seminar on "Fraud in the Common Agricultural Adoption of an anti-fraud strategy for the 2014-2020 programming period for the European Structural and Investment Funds (ESIF). Fraud risk assessment, management, and relevant procedures. Training in fraud prevention, with a view to knowledge-sharing. Themes: Introduction to the ESIF system (fraud and corruption prevention module), irregularity management, presentation of ARACHNE, professional ethics, integrity, prevention of corruption. Introduction to ARACHNE, development of risk scoring function in own IT system. Organisational restructuring, increase of the number of on-the-spot checks.Drafting of Act CXLIII of 2015 on public procurement. The purpose of the new Act is to transpose the new public procurement directives adopted by the EU legislature into Hungarian law.     Reasons for administrative measureTo clarify or consolidate existing rules; To enhance existing measures; Cross cutting measure, multi-agency measure/measure with impact on various bodies: (The National Anti-Corruption Programme states that in order to raise awareness of proper conduct as regards corruption, citizens need to be given a greater sense of ownership. Appropriate information of the target groups concerned by the measure is essential to shaping attitudes and ensuring that all measures implemented under the programme are effective in practice.)To enhance existing measuresScope of organisational measure Scope of organisational measure: Inter- agency cooperation; Fraud awareness trainings; Other: ‘Under the National Anti-Corruption Programme, the bodies with special responsibilities in combating corruption are to be given more human and material resources.’Fraud awareness trainings; Internal procedures for the acceptance and examination/investigation of reports on abuses, irregularities and integrity and corruption risks in connection with the operation of the Agency, and for dealing with lobbyists.Reorganisation of existing bodies; General trainings; Fraud awareness trainingsOrganisational measure - expected results in terms of resources      increased resourcesNeutral on resourcesThe purpose of training on combating fraud, professional ethics, integrity and prevention of corruption is to guard against and increase awareness of fraud and corruption. The organisational restructuring will make for more effective action to counter irregularities and fraud. Date of organisational measure31/12/201521/05/201515/06/2015Expected result of operational measureEnhanced cooperationTargeting of checks; Targeting of investigations; Enhanced ex-ante controlsOperational measure - date01/01/2015Sectoral or HorizontalHorizontalSectoral operational; horizontal organisationSectoralSectoralHorizontalSectors concernedRevenue - Tax Fraud; Expenditure - Agriculture; Expenditure - Fisheries; Expenditure - Cohesion policyExpenditure - Agriculture; Expenditure - FisheriesExpenditure - Agriculture;  Expenditure - Cohesion policy,  Expenditure - FisheriesSectors addressed by measure against corruption in public procurementPublic and Private sectorPublic sector (including political sphere)Other measures preventing corruption in public procurementmeasures addressing transparency in pubilc procurement; Measures to improve the effectiveness of management of public procurement; measures addressing transparency of companies participating in public procurementMeasures addressing transparency in public procurement; Measures to improve the effectiveness of management of pubic procurement; measures addressing transparency of companies participating in public procurement; The Public Procurement Act gives the Minister with responsibility for public procurement the possibility of notifying the Competition Authority of any infringements of competition law detected during the Minister's legal scrutiny of public procurement procedures, and sending the Competition Authority data arising from such scrutiny (with the exception of classified information). CommentIn order to promote the widest possible competition and ensure non-discrimination in procurement procedures, the Public Procurement Act contains strict rules on the definition of eligibility criteria and references, and introduces technical equivalence requirements for reference certificates.As well as extending the grounds for exclusion, the Act seeks to achieve the greatest possible transparency, fairness of competition and regularity of procurement procedures by ensuring more public visibility and greater transparency in the performance of contracts and traceability of payments.HUNGARY(HU) (continue)MEASURES 
 
44 

To  raise Anti-Fraud  and Corruption  awareness amongst students  in Maltese schoolsAnti-fraud cyclePrevention MeasuresNewScope of operational measureAFCOS Malta with the  cooperation  of the  Ministry for  Education and Employment(MEDE)   launched  an Anti-Fraud  Awareness Quiz in all Schools in Malta,targeting students aged between 14   and 16   years  studying  Accounts and Business Studies. The   competition consisted  of 12   multiple  choice questions  and MEDE sponsored the prizes  of the three  winners.Date of operational measure22/10/2015Expected result of operational measureEnhanced information flow;To  Raise  Anti-Fraud  and Corruption  awareness amongst students in Maltese schools. This  campaign formed an integral  part of the Communication Strategy which is  part  of Malta's National Anti-Fraud and Corruption Strategy,  adopted in  November 2008. Overall,  the number  of participants  was   encouraging.Horizontal or SectoralHorizontalMALTA (MT)Measure 
 
  
 
45 

Creation of a coordinating group on anti-dumping duty on solar panels, charged with preventing and investigating fraud involving anti-dumping dutyIntroduction of a new declaration system (AGS). The introduction of this system will enable more automated checks to be carried out and more combined profiles will be createdManagement priority relating to Payment of dutiesTesting of ARACHNE has started. A test set has been sent to the ARACHNE administrator. The first test results were discussed with the MAs from all over the country on 25 November 2015. The aim is to follow this up in 2016. The NL also plans to bring ARACHNE into operation for the 2014-2020 programming periodAdditional checks on incidence of double declaration of costs by the same and different applicantsAnti-fraud cyclePrevention  and Recovery and sanctionPreventionPreventionPreventionPrevention MeasuresUpdate Update NewNewNewPackage of measuresOperationalOperationalOrganisationalOperationalOperationalScope of operational measureRisk indicators and Increased number of checksIT tools (“IT data  feeding”, “Other IT”)                                                OTHER:With the new import declaration system there are more built-in system checks and more checks are carried out automatically. This is related to the IT tools, but also has implications for the organisation of the declaration processIT tools (“IT data  feeding”, “Other IT”)IT tools (“IT data  feeding”, “Other IT”) and Increased number of checksExpected result of operational measureEnhanced coordination; Enhanced cooperation; Enhanced information flow; Targeting of checks; Targeting of investigations; Enhanced ex-post controlsEnhanced coordination;Enhanced ex-ante controls  and Enhanced ex-post controlsTargeting of checks and Enhanced ex-ante controlsEnhanced ex-ante controlsDate01/01/201501/01/201501/01/201525/11/201501/07/2015Nature of the measureSectoralSectoralSectoralSectoralSectoralSectors concerned Revenue- CustomsRevenue- CustomsRevenue- CustomsExpenditure - Cohesion policyExpenditure - Agriculture and Expenditure - Cohesion PolicyExpected result of organisational measure: resourcesOTHER: More FTEs have been assigned to the process, resulting in a noticeable increase in the number of checks on goods imported. The checks are focused on the accuracy of the declarations for the payment of dutiesNETHERLANDS(NL)MEASURESScope of organisational measure OTHER: As a result of a readjustment of priorities, the allocation of FTEs has changed and the declaration and monitoring process relating to payment has been reinforced. 
 
 
46 

Administrative measures/procedures: A high density of verifications pursuant to Article 13 of Regulation 1828/2006 for the 2007-2013 programming period and pursuant to Article 125(4) of Regulation 1303/2013 for the 2014-2020 programming period serves to prevent irregularities.  The verification procedure allows the administrative bodies to check all the expenditure submitted by the beneficiary. A delegated act supplementing Regulation 1303/2013 was adopted by the Commission on 8 July 2015 with regard to the procedure for the notification of irregularities.Legislative  measure: Art.  99   para. 5  Fiscal  Penal Act, as of 1  Jan  2016 Customs  authorities  are allowed to fingerprint  suspected persons (under certain conditions).Organisational amendments and improvements in  the  EAGF/EAFRD  paying Agency   AT01Anti-fraud cyclePrevention; Detection and Recovery and sanctionDetection, investigation and prosecutionPrevention;  Recovery and sanction MeasuresUpdate AmendmentNew and Update Organisational  Package of measuresAdministrativeLegislative Organisational Cross-cutting measure, multi-agency measure/ measure with impact on various bodies                                                                                                                  OTHER: Monitoring and ensuring the proper use of funds and the notification of irregularities identified*Cross-cutting measure: Formal requirements in the national rules on eligibility and in the management and control system should increase efficiency. Standardised forms (check-lists) improve the quality of the accounts submitted. Standardised forms have also been developed for the calculation of personnel costs in order to increase transparency and clarityExpected result of organisational  measure: resourcesNeutral on resourcesType of act within administrative measureDecision, ResolutionBrief description of the legislative measureIn  case  of  a Customs offence involving  a damage of  more than  EUR 15.000, the  Customs office  as Fiscal Penal Authority is  allowed to fingerprint suspected persons,  if due to certain  facts  there is  reason to assumethat  they have left marks. This investigative  measure may  only  be enforced  with coercive  means if proportionate  and the integrity  of the person(s)  concerned is  not unduly violatedLegislative Act - numberSteuerreformgesetz (Tax Reform Act) 2015/2016 - StRefG, BGBl I 118/2015, Art. 9 11cLegislative Act - date14/08/2015DateLegislation - type of ActLaw/ActNature of the measureSectoralSectoralSectoralSectors concerned Expenditure - Cohesion policyRevenue - CustomsExpenditure - Agriculture; Expenditure - FisheriesScope of administrative measure Management of funds; On the spot checks; Irregularities reporting and RecoveryAUSTRIA (AU)MEASURESScope of legislative measure PowersReasons of administrative measureScope of organisational measure Reorganisation of existing bodies and Competence Reasons for legislative measureTo enforce the rules in line with developments in EU law 
 
47 

The creation of information points within the Managing Authorities (MAs), the police and the public prosecutor’s office, specifically the appointment of 'contact officers' in order to improve the exchange of information between the MAs and law enforcement agencies (the Regional and Appellate Prosecutor's Offices, the Provincial Police Headquarters, the Warsaw Police Headquarters and the National Police Headquarters)Order on anti-corruption policies in the Agency for Restructuring and Modernisation of Agriculture (No 26/2015). This measure was introduced to make the prevention and elimination of corrupt behaviour more effective.Act of 24 July 2015 amending the Excise Duty Act and certain other Acts - Journal of Laws 2015, item 1479The decision of the Chair of the Interdepartmental Group on Combating Financial Irregularities against the Republic of Poland or the European Union dated 16 September 2015 on the appointment of the Warmińsko-Mazurskie working group for combating irregularities and offences against the financial interests of the European Union.Anti-fraud cyclePrevention; Detection and Investigation and prosecution PreventionPreventionPrevention; Detection and Investigation and prosecution  MeasuresNewNew NewNewPackage of measuresOperationalOperationalLegislative AdmnistrativeScope of operational measureStructured cooperation with law enforcement; Structured cooperation with judicial authorities                                                                                        OTHER:Exchange of information regarding projects implemented using EU funds, and beneficiaries: the detection by law-enforcement agencies of infringements that involve irregularities or fraud is a source of information for the MAs, but on the other hand, information from the MAs may be used by law enforcement agencies for the purpose of proceedings.  Exchange of knowledge and experience in relation to the detection of irregularities and fraud in the use of EU fundsOTHER: Operational activities of Agency staff in the area of anti-corruptionTo remedy flawsOTHER: Limiting irregularities in the activities of tobacco intermediariesManagement of funds and Investigation Reasons for legislative measurePOLAND (PL)MEASURESScope of legislative measure Definition of a specific topicScope of administrative measure  
 
 
48 

The creation of information points within the Managing Authorities (MAs), the police and the public prosecutor’s office, specifically the appointment of 'contact officers' in order to improve the exchange of information between the MAs and law enforcement agencies (the Regional and Appellate Prosecutor's Offices, the Provincial Police Headquarters, the Warsaw Police Headquarters and the National Police Headquarters)Order on anti-corruption policies in the Agency for Restructuring and Modernisation of Agriculture (No 26/2015). This measure was introduced to make the prevention and elimination of corrupt behaviour more effective.Act of 24 July 2015 amending the Excise Duty Act and certain other Acts - Journal of Laws 2015, item 1479The decision of the Chair of the Interdepartmental Group on Combating Financial Irregularities against the Republic of Poland or the European Union dated 16 September 2015 on the appointment of the Warmińsko-Mazurskie working group for combating irregularities and offences against the financial interests of the European Union.To enhance existing measure; Cross-cutting measure, multi-agency measure/ measure with impact on various  bodiesOTHER:The objective of the group is to exchange information and experience regarding irregularities and offences committed against the financial interests of the European Union in Warmińsko-Mazurskie province.  The members of the group will aim to have rules drawn up for the efficient exchange of information between the institutions implementing EU funds and the investigative bodies on suspected fraud, as well as rules for mutual cooperation in case of fraud and rules for consultation on fraud prevention mechanisms*Cross-cutting:Action taken to enhance co-operation between the institutions implementing EU funds and the investigative authorities. The extent of the group's action is limited to the area of the provincial (i.e. regional scope)Expected result of operational measureEnhanced coordination; Enhanced cooperation; Enhanced information flow; Targeting of checks and Targeting of investigations OTHER:Making the prevention and elimination of corrupt behaviour more effectiveExpected result of organisational  measure: resourcesType of act within administrative measureDecision, Resolution Brief description of the legislative measureThe introduction of rules regulating the registration and conducting of economic activities by tobacco intermediariesLegislative Act - numberJournal of Laws 2015, item 1479.Legislative Act - date24/07/2015Date16/10/201514/04/2015Legislation - type of ActLaw/ActNature of the measureSectoralSectoralSectoralSectoralSectors concerned Expenditure -Cohesion policyExpenditure - AgricultureRevenue - CustomsExpenditure -Agriculture and Expenditure - Cohesion policyReasons of administrative measurePOLAND (PL) (continued)MEASURES 
 
49 

Measure to enhance coordination between the Agriculture and Fisheries Financing Institute (IFAP) and the Central Department for Criminal Investigation and Prosecution (DCIAP)Penalty framework as set out in the specific rules for the Programme for Rural Development on the Portuguese Mainland (PDR 2020).Approval of the 2015-2017 Strategic Plan to combat tax and customs fraud and evasion.Further to the publication of Standard 04/ADC - Anti-fraud strategy and risk assessment - 23 April 2015 by the Agency for Development and Cohesion (ADC), anti-fraud strategies were approved by the Managing Authorities and Intermediate Bodies of Operational Programmes in the 2020 Cohesion Policy programming period. The objective is to enhance execution of the tasks assigned to these bodies in relation to fraud prevention, detection and correction, with a view to ensuring that anti-fraud measures are put in place for the management and use of ESIF funds.Approval by the ADC of the suitability, reliability and debt information system, as part of the ESIF information system, which identifies entities that present an increased risk and therefore require specific monitoring. The entities were categorised using four suitability and reliability codes (suitable, under investigation, subject to conditions, banned) and two debt codes (eligible and non-eligible) using information gathered either during the current programming period or in previous programming periods, so as to maintain the records from previous programming periods.Anti-fraud cycleDetection;  Investigation and prosecutionPreventionPrevention; DetectionPrevention;Detection and Recovery and sanctionPrevention;Detection and Recovery and sanction MeasuresUpdatedNewUpdatedNewNewPackage of measuresOperationalLegislativeOperationalOperationalOperationalScope of operational measureStructured cooperation with judicial authoritiesFlagging practice; Risk indicators and Increased number of checksFlagging practice; Risk indicators and Increased number of checks; Stryctured cooperation with judicial authorities                              OTHER:An anti-fraud strategy is defined for every management and control system with the aim of ensuring that effective and proportionate anti-fraud measures are put in place, taking into account the risks identified in the course of its work. The procedures to be followed in relation to fraud prevention, detection and correction are set out, as are the procedures for reporting any situations identified to the relevant authorities, namely to either the AFCOS service or to the authorities responsible for conducting a criminal investigation.Flagging practice and Risk indicators PORTUGAL(PT) MEASURESScope of legislative measure Financial Penalties and Other administrative penalties 
 
 
   
50 

Measure to enhance coordination between the Agriculture and Fisheries Financing Institute (IFAP) and the Central Department for Criminal Investigation and Prosecution (DCIAP)Penalty framework as set out in the specific rules for the Programme for Rural Development on the Portuguese Mainland (PDR 2020).Approval of the 2015-2017 Strategic Plan to combat tax and customs fraud and evasion.Further to the publication of Standard 04/ADC - Anti-fraud strategy and risk assessment - 23 April 2015 by the Agency for Development and Cohesion (ADC), anti-fraud strategies were approved by the Managing Authorities and Intermediate Bodies of Operational Programmes in the 2020 Cohesion Policy programming period. The objective is to enhance execution of the tasks assigned to these bodies in relation to fraud prevention, detection and correction, with a view to ensuring that anti-fraud measures are put in place for the management and use of ESIF funds.Approval by the ADC of the suitability, reliability and debt information system, as part of the ESIF information system, which identifies entities that present an increased risk and therefore require specific monitoring. The entities were categorised using four suitability and reliability codes (suitable, under investigation, subject to conditions, banned) and two debt codes (eligible and non-eligible) using information gathered either during the current programming period or in previous programming periods, so as to maintain the records from previous programming periods.Expected result of operational measureEnhanced cooperation and Enhanced information flowEnhanced coordination; Enhanced information flow; Targeting of checks and Targeting of investigationsEnhanced cooperation; Enhanced information flow; Targeting of checks and Enhanced ex-ante controlsEnhanced cooperation; Enhanced information flow; Targeting of checks and Enhanced ex-ante controlsBrief description of the legislative measureThis is a package of Implementing Orders for the PDR 2020 laying down the rules for applying the measures in the PDR, specifying which situations constitute non-compliance and establishing the corresponding penalties. Penalties have been defined and tightened so as to deter any irregular or fraudulent behaviourLegislative Act - numberPlease refer, for example, to Implementing Order No 31/2015, bearing in mind that this is a legislative package comprising a number of measures.Legislative Act - date12/02/2015Date30/06/201530/01/201530/06/201516/10/2015Legislation - type of ActDecreeeNature of the measureSectoralSectoralSectoralSectoralSectoralSectors concerned Expenditure - Agriculture Expenditure - Agriculture Revenue -Customs and Revenue - Tax fraudExpenditure- Cohesion policyExpenditure- Cohesion policyTo enforce the rules in line with developments in EU law Reasons for legislative measurePORTUGAL(PT) (continued)MEASURES 
 
51 

Public procurement: the public procurement arrangements will be reformed by transposing the new European Directive on this matter; adopting the national public procurement strategy; ensuring the global coherence and efficiency of institutional arrangements by setting up a National Public Procurement Agency; and strengthening national cooperation between the institutions involved in the management and monitoring of European funds in order to identify risks arising from public procurement.A strategy for integrity 2015-2020 was adopted by the Ministry of Regional Development and Public Administration (MDRAP). This document introduces measures which aim to tackle certain problems and vulnerabilities that are specific to MDRAP’s areas of activity and competences, and offer solutions that provide a real and effective response. This strategy supports and supplements the National Anti-Corruption Strategy 2012-2015, promotes the same values and principles and aims to reduce and prevent corruption through three lines of action: prevention, education and combating corruption.Checks on direct procurement and conflicts of interest in the case of private beneficiaries, in accordance with Instructions No 126/2015 of the Ministry of Regional Development and Public Administration.Checks on direct procurement and conflicts of interest in the case of private beneficiaries, in accordance with Instructions No 126/2015 of the Ministry of Regional Development and Public Administration.Organised crime: adoption of Law No 318/2015 on the establishment, organisation and functioning of the National Agency for the administration of seized goods, which under the authority of the Ministry of Justice.Anti-fraud cyclePrevention; DetectionPrevention; Detection Prevention; DetectionPreventionRecovery and sanction MeasuresNew legislation; New organisational measure;new administrative ; New operationalNew legislation; new administrative, new organisational, new operationalNew  operationalNew legislation and amendment; new operational measureNew legislation; New organisational measure; new operational measureScope of legislationCompetences; PowersEthics, integrity and prevention of corruption.Competences, Powers; In the event that a potential conflict of interest regarding a public procurement contract is identified during ex-ante checks, the National Integrity Agency (Agentia Nationala de Integritate - ANI) issues an integrity warning which is forwarded to the head of the entity concerned in order to remedy the situation.Competences, Powers; Financial penalties; Other administrative penalties Reasons for legislative measureTo clarify or consolidate existing rules; to enforce rules in line with developments in EU lawTo clarify or consolidate existing rulesThe legislative package initiated by the Ministry of Justice in consultation with the National Integrity Agency (the Agency cannot initiate legislation) will play a role in supporting the objective of preventing conflicts of interest in public procurement. The legislative proposal was launched following the Government Memorandum of 30 January 2013. It is currently being debated in the Romanian Senate.To remedy flaws; To enforce the rules in line with developments in EU lawBreif description of the legislative measureBringing national legislation into line with the new European Directive. The drawing up of the strategy is a crucial stage in reforming the Romanian public procurement arrangements because it outlines a shared vision at a key moment in which the new directives in this area are proposing that Member States move towards a new paradigm, in a context in which public procurement is becoming the main instrument for unlocking economic growth at European level. Efforts to promote legislation which will contain provisions to combat favouritism, conflicts of interest and corruption.The strategy is geared to preventing corruption at the Ministry of Regional Development and Public Administration (MDRAP), increasing anti-corruption awareness, consolidating auditing mechanisms and inter-institutional cooperation on auditing and checks. It is also intended to increase the implementation and monitoring of action plans relating to the strategy, and develop communication and cooperation to ensure integrity at intra- and inter-institutional level and with civil society, the media and citizens, supporting local public authorities with a view to capacity-building in order to prevent corruption.The purpose of this law is to prevent conflicts of interest in the procedures for the granting of European funds and awarding of public procurement contracts, public works concessions and services contracts through the introduction of a process to investigate potential conflicts of interest shortly after the launching of the above procedures in order to avoid such conflicts without affecting the procedures.The Law supplements the institutional and legislative framework in the area of combating organised crime, serious crimes such as human trafficking and money-laundering. The Law transposes fully Article 10 of the EU Directive on confiscation, providing for the possibility of use of confiscated goods for social purposes.Legislation - Type of ActDecisionRegional law/decree/orderLaw/ActLaw/ActLegislative Act - numberGovernment Decision No 901/2015Order No 728/2015 approving the Integrity Strategy adopted by the Ministry for Regional Development and Public Administration 2015-2020 and action plans for implementing this Strategy adopted by the same Ministry for 2015-2020.ongoing procedureLaw No 318/2015 on the establishment, organisation and operation of the National Agency for the administration of seized goods.Legislative Act - date25/11/201508/04/201530/01/2013Scope of administrative measureHaving regard to the Romanian Government’s obligation to comply with ex-ante horizontal conditions relating to the reform of public procurement under Romania’s partnership agreement for the 2014-2020 programming period, approved by Commission Decision No C (2014) 5515 of 6 August 2014, the National Public Procurement Agency (ANAP) was set up to act as the main institution responsible for managing public investment and ensuring quality of public spending.Management of funds; Penalty; The action plan for implementing the Integrity Strategy adopted by the Ministry for Regional Development and Public Administration 2015-2020 sets out measures aimed at reducing risks and vulnerability to corruption, particularly in the following areas: public procurement, public works, human resources management and management of European funds.Reorganisation of existing bodies; Inter-agency cooperation; General trainingsInter- agency cooperationScope of operational measureIT tools; Flagging practice; Risk indicators; Increased number of checks; Structured cooperation with law enforcement; structured cooperation with judicial authoritiesIT tools, Risk indicators, Increased number of checks, Structured cooperation wth law enforcementIT tools; Web reporting/Hotline; Risk indicators; Increased number of checksIT tools; Structural cooperation with law enforcementROMANIA    (RO)MEASURES 
 
  
52 

Public procurement: the public procurement arrangements will be reformed by transposing the new European Directive on this matter; adopting the national public procurement strategy; ensuring the global coherence and efficiency of institutional arrangements by setting up a National Public Procurement Agency; and strengthening national cooperation between the institutions involved in the management and monitoring of European funds in order to identify risks arising from public procurement.A strategy for integrity 2015-2020 was adopted by the Ministry of Regional Development and Public Administration (MDRAP). This document introduces measures which aim to tackle certain problems and vulnerabilities that are specific to MDRAP’s areas of activity and competences, and offer solutions that provide a real and effective response. This strategy supports and supplements the National Anti-Corruption Strategy 2012-2015, promotes the same values and principles and aims to reduce and prevent corruption through three lines of action: prevention, education and combating corruption.Checks on direct procurement and conflicts of interest in the case of private beneficiaries, in accordance with Instructions No 126/2015 of the Ministry of Regional Development and Public Administration.Checks on direct procurement and conflicts of interest in the case of private beneficiaries, in accordance with Instructions No 126/2015 of the Ministry of Regional Development and Public Administration.Organised crime: adoption of Law No 318/2015 on the establishment, organisation and functioning of the National Agency for the administration of seized goods, which under the authority of the Ministry of Justice.Type of act  within administrative measureEmergency Order No 13/2015 concerning the establishment, organisation and operation of the National Public Procurement Agency and Decision No 634/2015 on the organisation and operation of the National Public Procurement Agency.Action plan    Reasons for administrative measureTo enhance existing measure; Cross-cutting measure, multi-agency measure/measure with impact on various bodiesThe National Public Procurement Agency has been set up as a public institution with legal personality under the authority of the Ministry of Public Finance. It has taken on the duties, activities, posts and staff of the National Authority for Public Procurement Regulation and Monitoring (ANRMAP), the Ministry of Public Finance's Unit for coordination and verification of public procurement (UCVAP) and public procurement verification departments within the regional directorates-general for public finance.To clarify or consolidate existing rules; To enhance existing measureScope of organisational measureReorganisation of existing bodies; Competence; Inter-agency cooperation; General trainings; Simplification of proceduresChecks on direct procurement and conflicts of interest in the case of private beneficiaries, in accordance with Instructions No 126/2015 of the Ministry of Regional Development and Public Administration.Scope of operational measureStructured cooperation with law enforcement; Structured cooperation with judicial authorities; The tasks of the Agency: to facilitate the prosecution and identification of goods acquired through criminal activities and other goods associated with crime; ensure basic administration of movable goods seized in the context of criminal proceedings; manage the integrated national IT system recording proceeds of crime; support the judicial bodies, in accordance with the law; coordinate, assess and monitor application of and compliance with the law at national level.Organisational measure - expected results in terms of resources      Increased resourcesNeutral on resourcesNeutralIncreased resourcesDate of organisational measure28/07/201503/02/201530/01/201324/12/2015Expected result of operational measureEnhanced coordination;Enhanced cooperation; Enhanced information flow; Enhanced ex-ante controls; enhanced ex-post controlsEnhanced coordination; Enhanced cooperation, Enhanced information flow, Enhanced ex-post controlsTargeting of checks, targeting of investigations, Enhanced ex-ante controls, Enhanced ex-post controlsEnhanced coordination;Enhanced cooperation; Enhanced ex-ante controlsEnhanced cooperation; Enhanced coordinationOperational measure - date25/11/201503/02/201501/07/201530/01/201324/12/2015Sectoral or HorizontalHorizontalSectoralHorizontalHorizontal HorizontalSectors concerned Expenditure - Cohesion policySectors addressed by measure against corruption in public procurementPublic sector (including political sphere)Public sector (including political sphere)Public sector (including political sphere)Other measures preventing corruption in public procurementMeasures addressing transparency in public procurement, measures to improve the effectiveness of management of the public procurement, measures to prevent corruption amongst personnel, including management; Measures to improve the effectiveness of control and audit. Measures to improve the effectiveness or managemnt of public procurement; measures to prevent corruption amongst personnel, including management; measures to improve the effectiveness of control and audit.  measures to prevent corruption amongst personnel, including management;measures to improve the effectiveness of control and audit. ROMANIA    (RO) (continued)MEASURES 
 
53 

ARSKTRP – administrative and organisational measures: In 2015 the Agency of the Republic of Slovenia for Agricultural Markets and Rural Development (ARSKTRP) organised courses for all its staff on combating fraud. Agency representatives also attended a training event as part of the Hercules project in Padua, Italy. On the basis of training courses and past experience, a manual on fraud indicators was produced, which forms the cornerstone of a more effective and systematic fight against fraud related to disbursements from the agricultural funds.Ministry of the Interior (Police and the Police and Security Directorate): Annual guidelines for police work: The Minister for the Interior has issued the guidelines and instructions for drawing up the Police work plan for 2015. Point 1.1 of the guidelines says that the Police is to continue to identify and investigate economic crime and organised forms of corruption — with particular emphasis on cases that hurt the budget and those that result in large-scale material gain — and strengthen cooperation between specialised investigation task forces. The THEMIS project on investigation of corruption and fraud against the EU was carried out in 2015.The Government Office for Development and European Cohesion Policy (SVRK) is drawing up a new strategy for fighting fraud against the EU, which will lay down the scope of work and make provisions for the use of EU funds. The procedure is under way.Title/description of the measure reported by SVRK: Obligatory elements of the 2014-2020 co-financing contract facilitating recovery. We add the reply from the Ministry of Finance - Department for Management of EU Funds/CA under the 3rd Measure. (1) 1.a Certifying Authority (MF-CA): In cases where EU assets have been used unjustly, a claim is immediately opened against the Intermediate Body (IB).Public procurement and the remit of the Commission for the Prevention of Corruption (KPK): 1. The IT tools have been upgraded in the interest of the public authorities, the general public and the media, now allowing access to data on spending by public institutions (through contracts for work and material or copyright contracts) on goods and services provided by public sector employees;2. Local authorities have produced integrity plans and identified risks (KPK presented its findings at a round-table entitled Municipal assets – a focal point for corruption risk.Financial Administration of Slovenia (FURS): The Rules on the exercise of public powers by FURS officials adopted. The 2014 Financial Administration Act redefines the powers of officials of the joint customs and tax authority. The manner in which public officials may exercise their powers had to be laid down.Date of organisational measure09/12/2015Expected result of operational measureTargeting of investigations, Enhanced ex-ante controlsEnhanced coordination; Enhanced cooperation; Enhanced information flow; Targeting of checks; Targeting of investigationsOperational measure - date12/10/201529/09/2014Sectoral or HorizontalHorizontalSectoralHorizontalSectoralSectors concernedExpenditure - AgricultureExpenditure - Cohesion policyRevenues - Customs; Revenue - Tax fraudSectors addressed by measure against corruption in public procurementPublic sector (including political sphere)Public and Private sector Public sector (including political sphere)Other measures preventing corruption in public procurementMeasures addressing transparency in public procurementMeasures addressing transparency in public procurement; Measures to imporve the effectiveness of management of public procurement; Measures to prevent corruption amonst personnel, including management, Measures to improve the effectiveness of control and auditCommentConcerning the remit of KPK: (3.a) Single measure adopted, (d) OPERATIONAL, 7.b Update; (7.1) Scope of operational measure: Points selected: (a), (c), (d), (e) = IT tools (IT data feeding, Other IT), Flagging practice, Risk indicators, Increased number of checks; (7.2) Points selected: (b), (d), (e), (f), (g) = Enhanced cooperation, Targeting of checks, Targeting of investigations, Enhanced ex-ante controls, Enhanced ex-post controls. (7.3) Operational measure adopted on 1 March 2015.SLOVENIA    (SI) (continued)MEASURES 
 
54 

ARSKTRP – administrative and organisational measures: In 2015 the Agency of the Republic of Slovenia for Agricultural Markets and Rural Development (ARSKTRP) organised courses for all its staff on combating fraud. Agency representatives also attended a training event as part of the Hercules project in Padua, Italy. On the basis of training courses and past experience, a manual on fraud indicators was produced, which forms the cornerstone of a more effective and systematic fight against fraud related to disbursements from the agricultural funds.Ministry of the Interior (Police and the Police and Security Directorate): Annual guidelines for police work: The Minister for the Interior has issued the guidelines and instructions for drawing up the Police work plan for 2015. Point 1.1 of the guidelines says that the Police is to continue to identify and investigate economic crime and organised forms of corruption — with particular emphasis on cases that hurt the budget and those that result in large-scale material gain — and strengthen cooperation between specialised investigation task forces. The THEMIS project on investigation of corruption and fraud against the EU was carried out in 2015.The Government Office for Development and European Cohesion Policy (SVRK) is drawing up a new strategy for fighting fraud against the EU, which will lay down the scope of work and make provisions for the use of EU funds. The procedure is under way.Title/description of the measure reported by SVRK: Obligatory elements of the 2014-2020 co-financing contract facilitating recovery. We add the reply from the Ministry of Finance - Department for Management of EU Funds/CA under the 3rd Measure. (1) 1.a Certifying Authority (MF-CA): In cases where EU assets have been used unjustly, a claim is immediately opened against the Intermediate Body (IB).Public procurement and the remit of the Commission for the Prevention of Corruption (KPK): 1. The IT tools have been upgraded in the interest of the public authorities, the general public and the media, now allowing access to data on spending by public institutions (through contracts for work and material or copyright contracts) on goods and services provided by public sector employees;2. Local authorities have produced integrity plans and identified risks (KPK presented its findings at a round-table entitled Municipal assets – a focal point for corruption risk.Financial Administration of Slovenia (FURS): The Rules on the exercise of public powers by FURS officials adopted. The 2014 Financial Administration Act redefines the powers of officials of the joint customs and tax authority. The manner in which public officials may exercise their powers had to be laid down.Date of organisational measure09/12/2015Expected result of operational measureTargeting of investigations, Enhanced ex-ante controlsEnhanced coordination; Enhanced cooperation; Enhanced information flow; Targeting of checks; Targeting of investigationsOperational measure - date12/10/201529/09/2014Sectoral or HorizontalHorizontalSectoralHorizontalSectoralSectors concernedExpenditure - AgricultureExpenditure - Cohesion policyRevenues - Customs; Revenue - Tax fraudSectors addressed by measure against corruption in public procurementPublic sector (including political sphere)Public and Private sector Public sector (including political sphere)Other measures preventing corruption in public procurementMeasures addressing transparency in public procurementMeasures addressing transparency in public procurement; Measures to imporve the effectiveness of management of public procurement; Measures to prevent corruption amonst personnel, including management, Measures to improve the effectiveness of control and auditCommentConcerning the remit of KPK: (3.a) Single measure adopted, (d) OPERATIONAL, 7.b Update; (7.1) Scope of operational measure: Points selected: (a), (c), (d), (e) = IT tools (IT data feeding, Other IT), Flagging practice, Risk indicators, Increased number of checks; (7.2) Points selected: (b), (d), (e), (f), (g) = Enhanced cooperation, Targeting of checks, Targeting of investigations, Enhanced ex-ante controls, Enhanced ex-post controls. (7.3) Operational measure adopted on 1 March 2015.SLOVENIA    (SI) (continued)MEASURES 
 
55 

Act No  357/2015 Coll  on   financial  control and audit and on   the  amendments of certain acts.The   system of the public internal  control will be streamlined  and more efficient by   this  act,  with the special emphasis on   the verification  and evaluation of the management  processes  and all  activities  of the public authorities.This Act puts  emphasis not  only on   the implementation of the programmes  co-financed  from the  EU  budget in  2014-2020, but also  on   fulfilling of the goals of ESO  programme and of  the  Government ManifestoNational Strategy for the Protection of the European Union´s  FinancialInterests  in the Slovak RepublicCentral Coordination Authority’s Guidelines no. 13   for the assessment of the conflict of interest  in the public procurement procedure The   goal of the guidance is  to define the term “conflict of interests”  in the course of the public  procurement and to  set  basic  rules  binding for  the MAs, responsible  for  the implementation of OP  in PP  2014-2020, by   the identification and assessment of the  conflict of interest  during PP.Central Coordination Authority’s Guidelines no. 5  for determining financial corrections,  to be made   by   MA   for  non-compliance with the rules on   public procurementAct No  343/2015 Coll  on   public  procurement and on   the  amendments of certain actsInterpretative Opinion of the  Office for  Public Procurement no   3/2015 of 06.05.2015 on   the assessment of potential conflict of interests  between the public contracting authority,  the contracting authority,  entity  pursuant to Article 7  of the  Act on   public  procurement and the bidder Form   for the assessment of conflict of interest  during a control  conducted bythe   Office,  which shall  be part  of each control  file from 01.  09.  2015The   development phase of the  implementation of IS AGIS  (Module FinancialManagement)Anti-fraud cyclePrevention; Detection and Recovery and sanctionPrevention; Detection and Recovery and sanctionPrevention; Detection; Investigation and prosecution and Recovery and sanctionPrevention and DetectionRecovery and sanction MeasuresNew  New and Update Administrative, New and Updated OperationalNew Admninistrative, New Organisational and New OperationalNew Legislation and New AdministrativeNew Admnistrative, New Organisational, New Operational Package of measuresLegislativeAdministrative and OperationalAdministrative, Organisational and OperationalLegislative and AdministrativeAdministrative, Organisational and OperationalScope of operational measureWeb reporting/Hotline; Flagging  practice; Risk indicators and Structured cooperation with law enforcement Flagging  practice; Risk indicators and Structured cooperation with law enforcementIT tools (“IT data  feeding”, “Other IT”)Reasons of administrative measureOTHER: The   absence of rules  for assessing conflicts of interest  in the procurement procedures at the national level, the absence of definition  of an official body  assessing the existence of a conflict of interest  in the procurement processesTo clarify or consolidate existing rules and To enhance existing measureTo clarify or consolidate existing rules and To enhance existing measureTo clarify or consolidate existing rules; To enhanced existing measure; Cross-cutting measure, multi-agency measure/measure with impact on various bodies  Reasons for legislative measureTo clarify or consolidate existing  rules and To remedy flawsTo enforce the rules in line with developments in EU lawScope of organisational measure Competence and Inter-agency cooperationRecovery                                      OTHER:Development of  the  IS for  the  new   processes of irregularities  recovery SLOVAKIA(SK)MEASURESScope of legislative measure Comptences; Powers; Definition of a specific topic; Recovery and Financial penaltiesDefinition of a specific topic and Other admnistrative penaltiesScope of administrative measure OTHER:Anti-fraud strategyManagement of funds; Investigation; PenaltyOTHER:Interpretative Opinion of the  Office for  Public Procurement No  3/2015 of 06.05.2015 on   the assessment of potential conflict of interests  between the public contracting authority,  the contracting authority,  entity  pursuant to Article 7  of the  Act on   public  procurement and the bidder,  published on   web side of the Office. A  form for  the assessment of conflict of interest  during a control  conducted by  the office,  which shall  be part  of each control  file from 01.  09.  2015 
 
56 

Act No  357/2015 Coll  on   financial  control and audit and on   the  amendments of certain acts.The   system of the public internal  control will be streamlined  and more efficient by   this  act,  with the special emphasis on   the verification  and evaluation of the management  processes  and all  activities  of the public authorities.This Act puts  emphasis not  only on   the implementation of the programmes  co-financed  from the  EU  budget in  2014-2020, but also  on   fulfilling of the goals of ESO  programme and of  the  Government ManifestoNational Strategy for the Protection of the European Union´s  FinancialInterests  in the Slovak RepublicCentral Coordination Authority’s Guidelines no. 13   for the assessment of the conflict of interest  in the public procurement procedure The   goal of the guidance is  to define the term “conflict of interests”  in the course of the public  procurement and to  set  basic  rules  binding for  the MAs, responsible  for  the implementation of OP  in PP  2014-2020, by   the identification and assessment of the  conflict of interest  during PP.Central Coordination Authority’s Guidelines no. 5  for determining financial corrections,  to be made   by   MA   for  non-compliance with the rules on   public procurementAct No  343/2015 Coll  on   public  procurement and on   the  amendments of certain actsInterpretative Opinion of the  Office for  Public Procurement no   3/2015 of 06.05.2015 on   the assessment of potential conflict of interests  between the public contracting authority,  the contracting authority,  entity  pursuant to Article 7  of the  Act on   public  procurement and the bidder Form   for the assessment of conflict of interest  during a control  conducted bythe   Office,  which shall  be part  of each control  file from 01.  09.  2015The   development phase of the  implementation of IS AGIS  (Module FinancialManagement)Expected result of operational measureEnhanced coordination; Enhanced cooperationand Enhanced information flow  Enhanced cooperation; Targeting of checks; Enhanced ex-ante controls and Enhanced ex-post controls Enhanced information flow                               OTHER: strengthening of the comprehensive solution for irregularities  area at all levelsExpected result of organisational  measure: resourcesNeutral on resourcesNeutral on resourcesType of act within administrative measureDecision, ResolutionCirculaire/circular, Instructions, Guidelines, Manuals Circulaire/circular, Instructions, Guidelines, Manuals OTHER:Development of  the  IS for  the  new   processes of irregularities  recovery.Brief description of the legislative measureThe   new   Act on   financial  control and audit creates  such an environment  of the public internal  control and audit that  will provide the assurance of effectiveness, efficiency and  sound  management of public  expenses.  Proper and effective  setting  of the public internal  control and audit system is  one of the important tools  of the Government  to detect  hidden system risk  and the prevention of fraud and other criminal offencesAct No  343/2015 Coll  on   public  procurement and on   the  amendments of certain acts,This Act shall  enter into  force on   18.04.2016  and it transposes the relevantpublic  procurement directives into the Slovak legal  systemLegislative Act - numberAct No  357/2015 CollAct No  343/2015 CollLegislative Act - date10/11/201518/11/2015Date07/01/201618/03/201504/08/2015Legislation - type of ActLaw/Act Law/ActNature of the measureHorizontalHorizontalHorizontalHorizontalSectoralSectors concerned Expenditure - AgricultureCorruption within PPPublic  sector (including political sphere)Mesures taken in the fight against corruption in PPMeasures addresing transparency in public  procurement; Measures to improve the effectiveness of management of the public  procurement; Measures addressing transparency of companies participating in public   SLOVAKIA(SK) (continued)MEASURES 
 
57 

Drawing up a Fraud Prevention Action Plan and organising anti-fraud training for entities carrying out paying agency tasks.A comprehensive reform of public procurement legislation on the basis of EU Directives 2014/23/EU, 2014/24/EU and2014/25/EU on public procurement.Data system link from the Structural Fund's data system to the Finnish Tax Administration for use in checking applicants' tax liabilities.A campaign against the hidden economy.  The previous campaign against the hidden economy, which ended in 2015, involved the reform of the Procurement Act, the tax number register for the construction sector, the reform of the Contractor's Liability Act, streamlining the international exchange of tax data and stepping up the penalties for financial crime. A campaign against financial crime and aiming to reduce the size of the hidden economy has operated continuously since 1996. Includes coordination of a wide range of duties relating to various administrative areas, ministries and agencies, and deciding on actions to take and resources.Anti-fraud cycleDetectionPrevention; Detection; Investigation and prosecution; Recovery and Sanction PreventionPrevention; Detection; Investigations and prosecution; Recovery and sanctionPrevention; Detection; Investigations and prosecution; Recovery and sanction MeasuresAdministrative update; Operational updateNew legislationNewNew legislation and amendment; Operational updateNew legislation, Amendment and Update OperationalScope of legislationOther admnistrative penalties   OTHER:Regulation of general government procurement procedures.Competences; Powers; Definition of a specific topic; Financial penalties; Other administrative penalties;Criminal sanctionsCompetences; Powers; definition of a specific topic; Financial penalties; Other administrative penalties; (more) Criminal sanctions Reasons for legislative measureTo enforce the rules in line with developments in EU lawTo remedy flawsTo remedy flawsBreif description of the legislative measureReview of all national legislation concerning public procurement on the basis of the EU Directives on procurement.  The provisions of the Directive that will be implemented include several anti-corruption measures.Reform of the Contractor's Liability Act to extend its scope of application and the reporting obligation.  In the construction sector, tax numbers will be on picture ID. Tax Administration register of tax numbers.Legislation - Type of ActLaw/ActLaw/ActLaw/ActLegislative Act - numberThe legislation has not yet been submitted to Parliament. The aim is that the new provisions will enter into force in 2016. The deadline laid down in the EU Directives on procurement for national implementation of the provisions is April2016. The exact date of entry into force is not known.For example, the reform of legislation, such as Act 22.12.2006/1233.-> 22.5.2015/678 Act on the Contractor’s Obligations and Liability when Work is Contracted OutFor example, the reform of legislation, such as Act 22.12.2006/1233.-> 22.5.2015/678 Act on the Contractor’s Obligations and Liability when Work is Contracted OutLegislative Act - date18/04/201622/05/201522/05/2015Scope of administrative measureEligibility criteria; Monitoring/desk checks;On the spot checks; Audit checklist and Irregularities reportingFINLAND    (FI)MEASURES 
 
58 

Drawing up a Fraud Prevention Action Plan and organising anti-fraud training for entities carrying out paying agency tasks.A comprehensive reform of public procurement legislation on the basis of EU Directives 2014/23/EU, 2014/24/EU and2014/25/EU on public procurement.Data system link from the Structural Fund's data system to the Finnish Tax Administration for use in checking applicants' tax liabilities.A campaign against the hidden economy.  The previous campaign against the hidden economy, which ended in 2015, involved the reform of the Procurement Act, the tax number register for the construction sector, the reform of the Contractor's Liability Act, streamlining the international exchange of tax data and stepping up the penalties for financial crime. A campaign against financial crime and aiming to reduce the size of the hidden economy has operated continuously since 1996. Includes coordination of a wide range of duties relating to various administrative areas, ministries and agencies, and deciding on actions to take and resources.Scope of operational measureRisk indicatorsIT toolsStructured cooperation with law enforcementStructured cooperation with law enforcementType of act  within administrative measureAction plan    Reasons for administrative measureTo enhance existing measureDate of organisational measure01/01/2015Expected result of operational measure Enhanced ex-post controls; Enhanced ex-ante controlsEnhanced information flowEnhanced coordination; Enhanced cooperation; Enhanced information flow; Targeting of checks; Targeting of investigationsEnhanced coordination; Enhanced cooperation; Enhanced information flow; Targeting of checks; Targeting of investigationsOperational measure - date31/12/201501/01/201522/05/201522/05/2015Sectoral or HorizontalSectoralHorizontalSectoralSectoralSectoralSectors concernedExpenditure - AgricultureExpenditure - Cohesion policyRevenue - Customs; Revenue - Tax FraudRevenue - Customs; Revenue - Tax fraudSectors addressed by measure against corruption in public procurementPublic sector (including political sphere)Public sector (including political sphere)Other measures preventing corruption in public procurementMeasures addressing transparency in public procurement; Measures to improve the effectiveness of management of public procurementMeasures addressing transparency in public procurement; Measures to improve the effectiveness of management of public procurementCommentBy international standards, Finland has taken few anti-corruption measures, and it may be that most corruption offences go undetected, particularly corruption involving public procurement. According to the memorandum of the working group, the reform of the national Procurement Act, based on the EU Procurement Directive, doesnot focus enough on anti-corruption measures.  More attention should be paid to fighting corruption in municipal public procurement; municipalities account for most of the public procurement in Finland.In 2015, the police administration introduced guidelines on the prevention, detection and investigation of bribes and other corruption offences. The guidelines are intended to increase police expertise in tackling corruption.  The primary aim of the guidelines is to increase police officers' capacity to detect bribery and other corruption offences, particularly in sectors, such as public procurement, where there is a special risk of corruption. The anti-corruption cooperation network set up a working group in 2015 to draw up Finland's first national anti-corruption strategy.FINLAND    (FI) (continued)MEASURES 
 
59 

In March 2015, the Swedish Ministry of Finance initiated an inquiry tasked with reviewing the legal situation regarding OLAF’s on-the-spot checks in Sweden, inter alia in order to bring it up-to-date with the present Multiannual Financial Perspective 2014-2020. The inquiry proposes some legal changes that would enter into force in January 2017. These proposals are currently subject to referral to authorities and other actors concerned in Sweden until April 2016.The Swedish Council for the protection of the European Union's financial interests (the SEFI Council) has been working on its triannual report to the Government for the years 2013-2015. The report sets out which measures have been undertaken during this period to promote efficient and correct management of EU-related funds. It also contains a description of the coordination of the relevant authorities' work to combat fraud, other irregularities and inefficient management concerning EU funds. (The Council was created by the Government to promote the efficient and correct use of EU-related funds in Sweden.)On 6 March, the Financial Management Authority arranged a seminar for officials from MAs and AAs for the EU funds. Its aim was to boost knowledge of the risks of error in the new programme period. One session was spent on procurement and state aid, which are specific risks for fraud and error. The aim of that session was to help the authorities become better at checking compliance with the rules and at informing beneficiaries of the public procurement rules. In 2015, as one of the first two MS, Sweden had a model for standard scales of unit costs within the Social Fund approved (Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/2195). The model covers most of the expenditure in the national Social Fund programme for 2014–2020 and entails major simplification for project managers and a reduction of the risk of irregularities. Anti-fraud cycleDetection fraud preventionfraud preventionPrevention; Detection MeasuresNew legislation and amendmentUpdateNew Administrative NewScope of legislationCompetences; Powers Reasons for legislative measureTo clarify or consolidate existing rules; To remedy flaws; To enforce the rules in line with developments in EU lawBreif description of the legislative measureThe proposals from the inquiry cover on- the-spot checks and the role of competent authorities and the AFCOS. However, the proposals are still subject to referral.Legislation - Type of ActDecreeLegislative Act - numberThe inquiry covers both laws/acts and decrees. A tentative date of entry into force is indicated below.Legislative Act - date01/01/2017SWEDEN    (SE)MEASURES 
 
 
60 

In March 2015, the Swedish Ministry of Finance initiated an inquiry tasked with reviewing the legal situation regarding OLAF’s on-the-spot checks in Sweden, inter alia in order to bring it up-to-date with the present Multiannual Financial Perspective 2014-2020. The inquiry proposes some legal changes that would enter into force in January 2017. These proposals are currently subject to referral to authorities and other actors concerned in Sweden until April 2016.The Swedish Council for the protection of the European Union's financial interests (the SEFI Council) has been working on its triannual report to the Government for the years 2013-2015. The report sets out which measures have been undertaken during this period to promote efficient and correct management of EU-related funds. It also contains a description of the coordination of the relevant authorities' work to combat fraud, other irregularities and inefficient management concerning EU funds. (The Council was created by the Government to promote the efficient and correct use of EU-related funds in Sweden.)On 6 March, the Financial Management Authority arranged a seminar for officials from MAs and AAs for the EU funds. Its aim was to boost knowledge of the risks of error in the new programme period. One session was spent on procurement and state aid, which are specific risks for fraud and error. The aim of that session was to help the authorities become better at checking compliance with the rules and at informing beneficiaries of the public procurement rules. In 2015, as one of the first two MS, Sweden had a model for standard scales of unit costs within the Social Fund approved (Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/2195). The model covers most of the expenditure in the national Social Fund programme for 2014–2020 and entails major simplification for project managers and a reduction of the risk of irregularities. Scope of administrative measureThe report sets out which measures have been undertaken during this period to promote efficient and correct management of EU-related funds. It also contains a description of the coordination of the relevant authorities' work to combat fraud, abuse and other improper use of EU funds. A description of how the Council's work has developed, and its plans for how it will operate in the next three years, are also included. Management of fundsEligibility criteria; Monitoring of funds; Monitoring/desk checks; On the spot checks; Irregularities reportingType of act  within administrative measureAction planThe seminar did not result in a legal act.Decision, Resolution    Reasons for administrative measureTo enhance existing measure; Cross-cutting measure: The SEFI Council consists of the National Economic Crime Authority, the Board of Agriculture, the Västerbotten County Council, the Migration Agency, the Police Authority, the EFS Council, the Agency for Economic and Regional Growth and the Financial Management Authority. The Council is as a forum for cooperation in which exchanges of experience can take place between authorities which, in various ways, are involved in the management and protection of the EU's financial interests in Sweden. During this period the Council has held three meetings a year, which were followed by thematic afternoon sessions with various speakers.To clarify or consolidate existing  rulesTo make use of the possibilities of simplification afforded by the EU rules, thus achieving simplification and reduced risk of error and irregularities.Sectoral or HorizontalHorizontalHorizontalSectoralSectoralSectors concernedExpenditure - Agriculture; Expenditure - Fisheries; Expenditure - Cohesion policy; Expenditure - Migration and asylum Expenditure - Cohesion policySWEDEN    (SE) (continued)MEASURES 
 
 
61 

Anti-fraud strategy.  Given that  UK authorities managing EU  funds  havediffering governance arrangements,  it is not the  case nor would it be suitable to have a single national anti fraud strategy.  However, entities such as HMRC and the Scottish  Government  authorities  have in place or are developinganti-fraud strategies in relations to customs duty under-evaluation  and  ESIF administration respectively.  All UK Managing  Authorities  for  the 2014-20 operational programmes are  developing  appropriate anti-fraud  measures asrequired by   Article  125.4 c) of the Common  Provisions Regulation, CPR.Adoption of Arachne (data based IT mining Tool for ESIF funds in WalesAnti-fraud cycleFraud prevention; Fraud detection; Fraud investigation and prosecution; Recovery and SanctionPrevention; Detection; Investigation and prosecution MeasuresNew and updateNewScope of administrative measureEligibility criteria; Management of funds; Monitoring/desk checks; On the spot checks; Audit checklist; Investigation; Irregularities reporting; Penalty; RecoveryScope of operational measureIT tools; Flagging practice; Increased number of checksType of act  within administrative measureAction plan    Reasons for administrative measureTo clarify or consolidate existing rules and To enhance existing measureExpected result of operational measureEnhanced co-ordination; Enhanced cooperation; Enhanced information flow; Targeting of checks; Enhanced ex-ante controls; Enhanced ex-post controlsSectoral or HorizontalSectoralSectoralSectors concernedRevenue - Customs; Expenditure - Cohesion policy Expenditure - Cohesion policySectors addressed by measure against corruption in public procurementPublic and Private sectorUNITED KINGDOM    (UK)MEASURES 
 
  
62 

Anti-fraud strategy.  Given that  UK authorities managing EU  funds  havediffering governance arrangements,  it is not the  case nor would it be suitable to have a single national anti fraud strategy.  However, entities such as HMRC and the Scottish  Government  authorities  have in place or are developinganti-fraud strategies in relations to customs duty under-evaluation  and  ESIF administration respectively.  All UK Managing  Authorities  for  the 2014-20 operational programmes are  developing  appropriate anti-fraud  measures asrequired by   Article  125.4 c) of the Common  Provisions Regulation, CPR.Adoption of Arachne (data based IT mining Tool for ESIF funds in WalesFurther details on HMRC's new strategy on customs under-evaluationThe   strategy is specific to HM   Revenue  &   Customs, the  Home  Office,  Trading Standards and other delivery partners.  It has  been approved and signed  off at Director for all  participating lines of business.The   strategy was   created  in  June 2015 and approved/signed off  in  September. It has been shared with the  Home  Office  and Trading  Standards  and has been more  widely publicised  through the UK Fulfilment House  Working  Group  (led  by Business Innovation  &   Skills  (BIS), and communicated to  the  EU  Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF)  who  have an interest in customs duty  undervaluation.2015  after which it has been under perpetual  review as the nature of the fraud activity  has been better  understood.Measures addressing trasparency in public procurement; Measures to prevent coruption amon personnel; Measures addressing transparency of companies paritcipating in public procurement; Measures to improve control and audit.Additional measuresUNITED KINGDOM    (UK) (continued)MEASURESFurther details  of HMRC's   new   strategy on   customs under-evaluation:1. Anti-fraud strategy:(a)  Does your organisation have an anti-fraud  strategy  to safeguard EU funds/revenue?  Yes(b) Is the strategy specific to your organisation or is  it a general strategy for HM   Government and  the devolved administrations  covering all EU funding/revenues?  Please specify the level at  which the strategy is  signed off e.g.  Director level?The   strategy is specific to HM   Revenue &   Customs, the  Home  Office,  Trading Standards and other delivery partners.  It has been approved and signed off at Director for all participating lines of business.(c) When was the anti-fraud strategy last reviewed and updated? How often is it reviewed? The   strategy was   created in June 2015 and approved/signed off  in  September 2015  after which it has been under perpetual  Annex to United Kingdom Questionnaire review as the nature of the fraud activity  has been better  understood..(d) Has   the anti-fraud strategy been  communicated outside  your organisation (is  it shared  with other  government bodies  and/or  in the public domain)? It has been shared with the  Home  Office  and Trading  Standards  and has been more  widely publicised  through the UK Fulfilment House  Working  Group  (led  by Business Innovation  &   Skills  (BIS) and communicated to  the  EU  Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF)  who  have an interest in customs duty  undervaluation. 
 
 
3.  CASE STUDIES AND BEST PRACTICES BY MEMBER STATES 

In the framework of the preparation of the Annual  Report for the Protection of the EU 
financial interests and the fight against fraud – 2015, Member States were also requested 
to  submit  case  studies  and  best  practices  which  would  help  to  contextualise  the 
information and analysis provided in the Report and its accompanying documents. 

The present section presents the summaries of the contributions provided by the Member 
States. The cases are presented per budget sector. 

3.1.  Revenue 

3.1.1.  Tobacco 

For several years, OLAF investigated suspicious activities that led to the discovery of a 
major  cross-Europe  cigarette  smuggling  network.  Due  to  OLAF's  cooperation  with  the 
Bulgarian authorities, there was successful fraud prevention, detection and recovery of 
national and European budget in a case relating to an organized trafficking ring involving 
persons from other countries as well as government officials supporting the offenders. In 
March 2015, seven offenders were arrested at a warehouse in Bulgaria while unloading 
significant amounts of cigarettes bearing no excise labels. A total of 28.7 million pieces 
of cigarettes without excise labels were seized totalling to 8 million Euros. Charges were 
brought against 32 people. 

There is a high-level of communication between European countries and an eagerness to 
be  involved  in  the  process  of  protecting  the  EU  budget.  Both  Bulgaria  and  Italy have 
cooperated with other countries to combat the smuggling of tobacco products. In 2015, in 
relation  to  investigations  led  by  the  Bulgarian  Directorate  General  for  'Combating 
Organized Crime' and  the law enforcement authorities in the  United Kingdom, Spain, 
Romania  and  Moldova,  an  enhanced  exchange  of  information  on  the  channels  of 
Europol was performed aimed at investigating an organized crime group involved with 
illegal production of cigarettes on the territory of different countries. This resulted in  a 
coordination meeting held at the Hague between the police authorities from the countries 
concerned  including  police  officers  from  Romania,  Moldova  and  Lithuania.  The  joint 
investigative  activities  on  the  case  resulted  in  the  disclosure  of  four  illegal  factories 
producing cigarettes –one in Hungary, one in Belgium and two in Poland. Similarly, in 
2015,  the  Guardia  di  Finanza  (Financial  Police)  in  cooperation  with  the  corresponding 
German,  French,  Polish,  Hungarian  and  Greek  bodies,  managed  to  identify  an 
extensive  organisation  importing  large  shipments  of  smuggled  cigarettes  of  Eastern 
European origin into Italy. 16.5 tonnes of smuggled cigarettes were seized, together with 
the 60 vehicles used by the traffickers totalling to 21 million Euros. 

Furthermore,  significant  efforts  were  made  by  both  France  and  Greece  to  tackle  the 
smuggling  of  tobacco.  On  two  occasions  in  2015,  the  Hellenic  Coast  Guard  identified 
vessels  which  were  in  the  process  of  unloading  smuggled  cigarettes  when  acting  on 
information  regarding  the  tackling  of  organised  forms  of  crime  and  countering  the 

63 

 
 
smuggling of tobacco products. With regards to the first case (Rosetta), a total of 11 799 
420 packages were discovered amounting to 2 359 624.014 Euro of duties evaded and, in 
relation to second case (Zahra), a total of 33 260 000 cigarettes were found which evaded 
duties amounting to 6 086 007.87 Euro. The French customs authorities intercepted two 
containers at the port of Le Havre and identified 1 400 boxes of 50 cartons of smuggled 
cigarettes which were not authorised to be sold in the EU and were clearly intended to 
exclusively supply the parallel and illegal market. 

Greece : Rosetta Case 

64 

 
 
 
Greece : Rosetta Case 

Greece : Rosetta Case 

65 

 
 
 
 
Greece : Rosetta Case 

Greece : Rosetta Case 

66 

 
 
 
 
Greece: Zahra Case 

Greece: Zahra Case 

Greece: Zahra Case 

67 

 
 
 
 
 
Greece: Zahra Case 

3.1.2.  Customs 

During  2015,  the  Bulgarian  customs  authorities  detected  and  took  measures  against 
fraudulent  and  criminal  methods  and  practices  of  some  traders  who  violate  of  national 
and supranational law by declaring a very low value of the goods in their importation and 
customs  clearance,  thereby  causing  enormous  damage  to  the  national  and  European 
budget.  Thanks  to  close  cooperation  with  OLAF  and  the  customs  administrations  of 
other  Member  States,  including  through  participation  in  joint  customs  operation 
"SNAKE",  appointed  experts  from  the  Bulgarian  National  Customs  Agency  have 
developed  a  ‘Guide  on  prevention  and  detection  and  clearance  of  low  prices’  using 
relevant  methodologies  developed  by  OLAF  and  different  Member  states  customs 
authorities.  The  result  of  operation  "SNAKE"  was  to  decrease  the  circle  of  economic 
operators  representing  textiles  and  shoes  from  China  at  low  prices  from  51  to  just  16 
operators. 

In  relation  to  Greece,  in  2015,  the  Attica  branch  of  the  ELYT  (Customs  Auditing 
Department)  carried  out  11  investigations  relating  to  the  protection  of  the  financial 
interests of the EU against fraud, and more specifically, the evasion of import duties and 
anti-dumping  duties  by  means  of  false  declarations  of  origin  or  misdescription  of  the 
tariff  classification.  Of  the  above  investigations,  one  has  been  completed,  while  the 
others are still on-going. In the same year, 13 investigations were also completed from 
the  previous  year  (2014),  resulting  in  12  infringements  (simple  customs  infringements 
and smuggling).  

More specifically, one of these Greek cases mentioned above involved a company under 
investigation  which  started  importing  photovoltaics  into  Greece  from  the  People’s 
Republic  of  China  (PRC)  in  July  2012.  From  June  2013  to  April  2014  the  company 

68 

 
 
 
imported  photovoltaics  from  Malaysia  and  from  May  2014  to  January  2015  from 
Taiwan. It should be noted that imports of photovoltaics into the EU from these countries 
are  not  liable  to  import  duties.  An  investigation  was  carried  out  by  OLAF 
representatives,  who  in  cooperation  with  the  customs  authorities  in  Taiwan,  found  out 
that the goods in question (photovoltaics) arrived in containers from the PRC in the Free 
Trade Zone of Taiwan (FTZ) and were then transferred directly (usually the same day or 
the  following  day)  to  other  containers  destined  for  the  EU.  Therefore,  the  company 
devised a way of providing the Greek customs authorities with documents accompanying 
the  customs  clearance  of  goods,  such  as  invoices,  certificates  of  origin,  bills  of  lading, 
etc.,  issued  by  companies  in  Taiwan  to  make  it  appear  that  the  imported  photovoltaics 
originated in that country (Taiwan), thereby avoiding liability for paying the duties. The 
evaded duties, establishing duties and taxes of the Elefsina Customs Office and the Fifth 
Customs Office of Piraeus, amount to EUR 2 582 720.28. This amount comprises: anti-
dumping duties: EUR 2 114 718.75, countervailing duties: EUR 455 416.98 and VAT: 
EUR 12 584.55. 

3.2.  Expenditure 

3.2.1.  Structural funds 

In  Estonia,  an  undertaking  used  aid  to  purchase  a  unique  technological  solution  for 
recycling plastic waste into building materials at a cost of EUR 475 000. In the course of 
the investigation it was found that the actual purchase price of the equipment was EUR 
55  000  and  that  the  second-level  implementing  body  had  been  shown  bogus  (fake) 
transactions with a higher value for the purpose of obtaining more aid. In order to avoid 
similar occurrences in future, clearer provisions will be drawn up on verification of the 
procurement process and the equal treatment of tenderers, including on the transparency 
of  the  procurement  process,  and  the  provision  of  detailed  information  on  equipment  in 
tenders will be made obligatory.  

Furthermore, another Estonian case involved the use of aid by an undertaking to acquire 
a plastic waste cleaning line at a cost of EUR 959 952. An investigation revealed that the 
components  of  the  equipment  were  already  in  the  possession  of  the  beneficiary  or  its 
associated undertaking prior to acquisition. The documents presented to the second-level 
intermediate  body  were  fictitious,  as  the  transactions  had  been  performed  with  an 
undertaking  not  engaged  in  supply  of  the  equipment  concerned.  In  actual  fact,  the 
undertaking  had  bought  the  equipment  from  itself  at  a  price  several  times  higher,  with 
the aim of obtaining more aid funding. The aid was not paid out, so the case was one of 
attempted fraud. In order to avoid similar occurrences in the future, clear provisions on 
verification  of  the  procurement  process,  the  equal  treatment  of  tenderers,  and  the 
transparency of the procurement process will be drawn up, and the provision of detailed 
information on the equipment in the tenders will be made obligatory.  

There have been several operations on behalf of Italy to combat fraud in connection with 
payments made from the EU Budget. The first example concerns Structural Funds, and 

69 

 
 
in particular, the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF). The operation carried 
out  by  the  Guardia  di  Finanza  (Financial  Police)  in  Trapani  was  prompted  by  tax 
inspections  of  a  group  of  businesses  operating  in  the  tourism  and  hotel  sector,  all 
connected to a single family. Further inquiries into the tax aspects shed light on a string 
of false invoices used by the hotel businesses, to both unduly reduce their tax burden and 
to support applications for funding from the Structural Funds for a project to upgrade and 
expand hotel accommodation. Among other things, the investigations established a range 
of  fraudulent  behaviour  on  the  part  of  the  leading  partner  in  the  criminal  organisation. 
This behaviour was intended to divert from the assets of the companies corporate assets 
that might be subject to seizure in order to satisfy claims brought by the tax authorities.  
The  operation  identified  income  of  around  EUR  40  million  on  which tax  had  not  been 
paid, invoices for non-existent transactions of EUR 20.6 million, and VAT infringements 
worth a further EUR 16 million.  Overall, 14 individuals were reported to the ordinary 
judicial authority for tax offences, serious fraud and misappropriation at the expense of 
the  state,  and  four  legal  persons  were  reported  for  their  administrative  liability  in  the 
matter. On another occasion, an investigation identified that a criminal organisation was, 
producing and using various forged documents, in order to enable a group of companies 
to collude and unduly benefit from EUR 1 million from the European Social Fund. The 
investigation  resulted  in  26  natural  persons  being  reported  to  the  judicial  authority  for 
conspiracy and serious fraud with intent to obtain public funds, together with nine legal 
persons for their administrative liability in the matter. 

through 

Again,  in  Italy,  the  Guardia  di  Finanza  in  Ancona  carried  out  a  criminal  investigation 
into the awarding of an international works contract in Côte d'Ivoire, directly funded by 
the  European  Commission 
the  European  Development  Fund.  In-depth 
investigation revealed a complex fraud mechanism put in place by an Italian company in 
which false documentation was submitted to the contracting authority when the contract 
was  being  awarded,  attesting  to  the  fulfilment  of  the  technical  and  professional 
requirements  needed  to  participate  in  the  tender  procedure.  Subsequently,  once  the 
contract had been awarded, suppliers' invoices were submitted for amounts that had been 
inflated, or were made out in the name of unsuspecting suppliers, in order to document 
the progress of the works. The investigation resulted in five individuals being reported to 
the  judicial  authority  for  tax  offences  and  serious  fraud  against  the  State  and  the 
European  Commission,  in  relation  to  the  improper  request  and  receipt  of  Community 
resources  of  EUR  4.8  million,  of  which  15  %  (EUR  800  000)  was  blocked  before 
payment.  In  order  to  recover  the  amounts  unduly  received,  a  preventative  seizure  was 
carried out of goods, resources and securities of EUR 3.2 million.  

Latvia  reported  a  case  where  a  legal  person  sent  the  Investment  and  Development 
Agency  of  Latvia  (LIAA)  a  letter  with  an  attached  notice  from  the  GE  Money  Bank 
stating that the enterprise has received a 310 000 euro loan from the bank. Through the 
communication with the bank’s employees it was confirmed that the bank never issued 
such notice to the legal person. In August 2011 LIAA sent a request to the Latvian State 
Police to start a criminal investigation. In May 2015 the City of Riga Vidzeme District 

70 

 
 
Court  found  that  the  five  defendants  involved  were  guilty.  Furthermore,  on  a  second 
occasion and regarding another case, during the evaluation of a legal person’s submitted 
final payment request, LIAA found contradicting information relating to the costs of the 
purchased  equipment.  LIAA  and  the  State  Revenue  Service’s  crosschecks  provided  no 
way of establishing the purchased equipment’s origins, since it was in the possession of 
at  least  four  different  owners  after  the  manufacturer  initially  sold  it.  The  legal  person 
three 
purchased 
procurements.  In December 2011 LIAA sent a request to the Latvian State Police to start 
a  criminal  investigation.  In  May  2015  the  Court  found  a  natural  person  guilty  and 
sentenced to 3 years prison time, while two natural persons were found guilty and were 
both sentenced to 2 years in prison.  

intermediaries  after  arranging 

through  several 

the  equipment 

Moreover, in the third case reported by Latvia, a legal person, following a procurement 
procedure,  claimed  that  some  corrections  were  necessary  in  the  technical  specification 
for  the  equipment  they  were  willing  to  purchase.  Because  of  that  another  procurement 
procedure  had  to  be  held.  In  both  procurements  the  contract  was  awarded  to  the  same 
supplier, but the price of the equipment in the offer in the second procurement exceeded 
the  price  that  was  offered  during  the  first  one  by  442  000  euro.  The  Investment  and 
Development  Agency of Latvia (LIAA) suspected that the legal person had mistakenly 
set  the  price  in  euro  instead  of  lats  in  the  initial  procurement  and  decided  to  arrange  a 
new  procedure  to  fix  the  mistake.  LIAA  found  out  both  that  there  was  no  established 
connection between the awarded supplier and the equipment’s manufacturer, and that the 
supplier  was  removed  from  the  VAT  payer  register  in  Poland,  and  its  officials  were 
Latvian citizens. LIAA suspected a fraudulent collusion between the beneficiary and the 
supplier  and  in  December  2011  sent  a  request  to  the  Latvian  State  Police  to  start  a 
criminal  investigation.  In  2015  the  Latvian  Court  found  the  defendants  guilty  and 
imposed financial penalties. The case was also reported to the European Commission and 
updated via IMS. 

Furthermore,  two  Slovenian  cases  concerned  companies  performing  tourist  and 
hospitality services entered into agreements with the Ministry of the Economy on the co-
funding  of  their  planned  investments  in  the  construction  of  new  facilities  or  the 
renovation of old facilities using funds from the European Regional Development Fund. 
Together  with  the  company  contracted  to  carry  out  the  construction  work,  they 
developed a scheme that enabled them, by stating fraudulent data, to justify claims for an 
unjustified payment of funds as per the aforementioned agreements.  Pursuant to the co-
funding  agreement,  the  tourist  companies  then  requested  the  Ministry  to  reimburse  the 
portion  of  the  costs  that  they  had  allegedly  incurred  due  to  payments  for  construction 
services. As evidence, they submitted false interim invoices and summary payment slips 
concerning the works performed, thus deceiving the Ministry into paying €3.7 million to 
the first company and €1.8 million to the second. After three charges by the Specialised 
Office  of  the  State  Prosecutor  of  the  Republic  of  Slovenia  from  2012  and  2013, 
judgements  were  issued  in  the  matters  "Rimske  terme"  and  "Betnava".  These  are  final 

71 

 
 
against a total of 5 natural entities and 1 legal entity, while a conviction against 1 natural 
person is not yet final .  

Slovakia has reported two cases both concerning the Intermediate Body under Managing 
Authority  (hereafter  IBMA);  the  first  involving  the  reconstruction  of  heat  distribution 
pipes  and  the  second  involving  a  hotel's  competitiveness.  With  regards  to  the  first,  a 
complaint was lodged to the staff of the Central Contact Point for OLAF (i.e. Slovakian 
AFCOS)  against  a  potential  misconduct  of  the  IBMA  within  the  approval  procedure 
regarding  the  application  for  non-repayable  contribution  (hereafter  “NRC”).  That 
complaint  had  also  pointed  to  an  unlawfully  granted  contribution  for  the  project 
“Reconstruction  of  heat  distribution  pipes"  and  also  indicated  a  suspected  serious 
offence.  The  Slovak  Government  Office’s  group  of  inspectors  (hereinafter  “group  of 
inspectors”) established that IBMA failed to proceed in compliance with the System for 
managing the Structural Funds and the Cohesion  Fund; IBMA’s  Manual; the Call; and 
the  Handbook  for  the  Applicants.  It  was  found  out  that  the  check  on  the  formal 
correctness of the application for NRC carried out by the IBMA was insufficient. Despite 
this  inadequate  check,  the  IBMA  accepted  the  applicant’s  statement  and  did  not  again 
request  the  applicant  to  provide  the  particulars  missing  in  the  NRC.  The  group  of 
inspectors  informed  both  the  IBMA  and  the  Managing  Authority  (hereafter  “MA”)  on 
this situation and requested the MA for providing its opinion on the facts concerned. The 
MA subsequently requested the IBMA to provide information on a follow-up action and 
to submit a proposal for a revised measure to remedy the deficiencies. As the Contract on 
granting the NRC had been breached, the IBMA withdrew from the Contract on granting 
the NRC. The group of inspectors found out that the funds had not been paid out to the 
beneficiary. 

With  regards  to  the  second  Slovakian  case,  OLAF  played  a  major  part  as  it  was  an 
anonymous complaint lodged to OLAF alleging that there was a risk of infringement of 
the  conditions  for  granting  assistance  to  the  hotel  that  led  to  an  investigation  by  the 
Slovakian  Central  Contact  Point  for  OLAF  (hereafter  “CCP”).  On  the  basis  of  that 
complaint, the CCP’s staff carried out a check on how the IBMA proceeded within the 
application  procedure  regarding  the  NRC.  The  documentation  submitted  to  the 
inspection  group  showed  that  it  had  not  been  possible  to  unequivocally  determine  the 
exact  figure  regarding  the  hotel’s  accommodation  capacities  at  the  time  before  the 
signature  of  the  Contract  on  granting  the  NRC.  The  IBMA  carried  out  an  on-the-spot-
check  (hereafter  “OTSC”),  on  the  basis  of  expert  assessors’  recommendation,  after  the 
Contract  on  granting  the  NRC  had  been  signed,  i.e.  at  the  time  when  it  was  no  longer 
possible for the IBMA to objectively check the situation in the accommodation capacities 
of  the  hotel  before  the  reconstruction.  The  group  of  inspectors  established  that,  at  the 
date  of  the  completion  of  the  control  focused  on  the  project  titled  “Improving  the 
competitiveness  of  the  hotel”,  no  application  for  payment  was  submitted  and  no  funds 
were paid out. 

72 

 
 
3.2.2.  Agriculture and Fisheries 

A German rural tourism case in which a claimant applied to the granting authority for 
payment disbursement for a swimming pool project, which had not been put into effect 
by  the  end  of  the  implementation  period,  has  also  been  reported.  The  amount  wrongly 
applied for was so great that the granting authority, after applying the ensuing reduction 
penalty,  rejected  the  payment  application  in  its  entirety.  The  claimant  then  instituted 
proceedings at the administrative court for the disbursement of EUR 50 000.00 in funds. 
The case presented suspicion about the source of the money with which the claimant had 
paid  the  assigned  swimming-pool  technology  company  and  also  about  the  lawful 
taxation  of  the  payments  made  by  the  claimant  to  the  swimming  pool  technology 
company.  The  granting  authority  therefore  additionally  informed  the  central  tax 
investigation authorities of Thuringia at the relevant tax office, by way of a control report 
on  the  operation.  It  can  therefore  be  deduced  that  the  funding  management  control 
system  in  place  (in  payment  procedures),  as  well  as  the  granting  authority's  own-
initiative  investigation  (Section  24  of  Thuringian  Administrative  Procedures  Act)  have 
prevented fraud in this case. 

OLAF was notified of a French case regarding payment of aid to promote wine on the 
markets of third countries, as provided for under the CMO. In particular, the irregularity 
concerned  invoices  that  were  forged  in  order  to  collect  more  than  EUR  600,000  of 
subsidies  from  FranceAgriMer,  the  paying  agency,  for  promoting  wine  outside  the 
European  Union.  During  the  ex-post  inspection  of  the  first  payment  of  around  EUR 
350,000,  the  inspection  body  of  the  Mission  COSA  (inspection  of  operations  in  the 
agricultural sector) revealed that fake invoices were produced through a financial partner 
in China who knew that they did not correspond to the services provided. This case was 
the  subject  of  an  accusation  made  to  the  Public  Prosecutor  by  the  MCOSA  inspection 
body  in  2013.  The  operator  was  given  a  suspended  prison  sentence  of  12  months  and 
fined EUR 30,000 for fraud by the Bordeaux criminal court.  

The  Italian  Guardia  di  Finanza  in  Caltagirone  (Financial  Police)  identified  a  criminal 
organisation  that  prepared  bogus  documentation  attesting  to  the  fulfilment  of  the 
requirements  needed  to  access  contributions  for  supporting  production  under  the 
Common  Agricultural  Policy  (CAP).  The  fraud  was  essentially  based  on  false 
certification that the holder was working farm land, allowing entitlements to be obtained 
with  a  view  to  aid.  Furthermore,  fraudulent  forms  were  discovered  for  the  transfer  of 
entitlements through the use of fictitious companies specially set up for this purpose. The 
investigation led to 57 persons being reported to the judicial authority for conspiracy and 
serious fraud with intent to obtain public funds. Nine of these persons were placed under 
arrest  by order  of the judiciary.  Money,  goods  and other  assets of EUR 2.7  million, as 
well  as  CAP  entitlements  used  by  those  under  investigation  for  a  total  of  around  EUR 
650,000, were also seized. 

Moreover,  the  Italian  Carabinieri  of  the  Siracusa  Provincial  Unit  and  the  Anti-Fraud 
Unit  of  the  Carabinieri  in  Rome,  following  a  long  and  complex  investigation  in  2015, 

73 

 
 
carried  out  14  precautionary  measures  in  Sicily  and  Lazio  ordered  by  the  Siracusa 
investigating  judge  for  conspiracy,  serious  fraud,  corruption  and  forgery.  The 
investigation revealed that the defendants, through deception and in some cases violence, 
had  appropriated  over  2000  hectares  of  agricultural  land  with  the  aim  of  improperly 
receiving substantial Community payments by using forged certificates concealing their 
real use. 

Portugal  has  reported  several  cases  concerning  the  European  Fisheries  Fund  (EFF) 
which emphasize the methodology of control and the cooperation between  the national 
entities.  An  anonymous  complaint  was  addressed  to  the  Tax  and  Customs  Authority 
(AT)  -  Ministry  of  Finance  involving  a  shipbuilding  company,  providing  services  to 
several  vessel  owners.  The  AT  examined  the  cash  flows  of  the  company  providing 
services (the supplier) and ascertained that the company accounts showed no direct link 
between  the  amounts  received  from  customers  and  those  paid  into  the  bank  accounts. 
Additional  documents  requested  from  the  company  were  analysed,  confirming  that  the 
following  practice  occurred  repeatedly  with  payments  received  from  customers  (vessel 
owners):  on  the  same  date  that  sums  were  credited  to  the  bank  account,  the  company 
withdrew  the  same  amount;  this  was  sometimes  deposited  into  the  customer's  account 
and  in  other  cases  was  transferred  to  the  managing  partner's  personal  account  or  to  an 
unknown  beneficiary.  As  such,  the  AT  informed  the  Directorate-General  for  Maritime 
Policy  (DGPM)  in  the  Ministry  of  the  Sea  and  the  DGPM  sent  the  case  to  the 
Directorate-General for Natural Resources, Safety and Maritime Services (DGRM), also 
in the Ministry of the Sea, which referred the case to the PROMAR Managing Authority. 
The Managing Authority informed the Prosecutor's Office of the facts of the case and the 
EFF Certifying Authority (IFAP) sent the details of the irregularities to the Inspectorate-
General  of  Finance  (IGF),  which  is  the  AA  and  the  AFCOS.  The  IGF  entered  the 
communications in the IMS system and sent them to OLAF in the third quarter of 2015. 

3.3.  Best practices  

3.3.1.  Corruption and conflict of interest 

In  the  United  Kingdom,  there  are  four  independent  paying  agencies  for  the  CAP 
representing  England,  Scotland,  Wales  and  Northern  Ireland  respectively.  Each  paying 
agency is responsible for its own anti-fraud policies and operations. These are supported 
by national rules, legislation and policies issued centrally.  

a.  Policy 

All  government  employees  are  obliged  to  follow  the  Civil  Service  Employee  Policy 
(issued  nationally)  covering  professional  conduct  which  includes  detailed  guidance  on 
the conflict of interests and the accepting or giving of gifts and hospitality. 

The policy is supported by national legislation and guidance. For example, the Bribery 
Act 2010, makes it a criminal offence to offer, promise or give a bribe to a government 
official  or  a  person  acting  on  behalf  of  a  government  body.  It  is  also  an  offence  to 

74 

 
 
request, agree to receive, or accept a bribe.  Failure to comply with the policy could lead 
to  disciplinary  action,  including  dismissal  or  legal  (i.e.  criminal)  proceedings. 
Furthermore, under the Freedom of Information Act 2001, any member of the public has 
the  right  to  request  information  on  any  gifts  or  hospitality  that  government  employees 
have provided or accepted. 

b.  How are people made aware of the rules regarding the possible conflict of interests 
and how are changes or updates communicated?  

Induction packs are issued at training courses for newcomers and guidance is re-issued 
when there are any updates or amendments. Regular email bulletins and news items are 
posted on internal departmental websites which serve to keep all government employees 
updated  on  changes  to  the  rules  and  procedures,  and  remind  them  of  their  legal  and 
contractual obligations.  

c.  Who is responsible for ensuring the policy is adhered to?  

Senior managers with the support of the human resources departments and internal audit 
services are responsible for ensuring there is compliance with the rules. 

d.  Scope  

The  Cabinet  Office  is  the  lead  government  department  for  all  government  departments 
and  agencies  in  the  UK.  It  has  provided  a  mandatory  Civil  Service  Learning  package 
which  is  an  on-line  module  for  all  Civil  Servants  to  complete.  The  module  helps 
employees to avoid being in breach of the Gifts and Hospitality Policy and Procedures. 

In  addition,  the  Counter  Fraud  and  Corruption  course  aims  to  raise  awareness  and 
promote  knowledge  and  understanding  among  every  government  employee  of  the 
importance  of  tackling  fraud  as  well  as  the  risks  and  issues  relating  to  bribery  and 
corruption.  This  is  also  a  mandatory  on-line  course  and  line  managers  are  sent  email 
notifications alerting them if their staff have not completed the course.  

e.  Additional Guidance  

Individual government departments have introduced additional policies and guidance for 
employees  to  ensure  that  Cabinet  Office  policies  are  adapted  to  meet  particular 
departmental requirements. For example, a key document issued by the human resources 
department  clearly  explains  the  rules  that  all  employees  must  adhere  to  including 
sections on the conflict of interests. The policy is reviewed and re-issued annually to all 
employees.  

f.  Does the policy contain a definition of a conflict of interests?  

As each paying agency is responsible for implementing, managing and updating policy 
there are different approaches taken in the UK.  

g.  Outside employment  

75 

 
 
The policy reminds employees that it is important that:  

there is no suspicion that an employee or former employee might be influenced by the 

• 
hope of future employment with another organisation;  

•  an  organisation  does  not  gain  an  improper  advantage  over  its  competitors  by 
employing a former employee of the paying agency who has had access to information in 
the course of their official duties that may affect that firm or its competitors.  

h.  Outside occupations or activities whether paid or voluntary  

The policy states that employees must not do the following: 

•  do  anything  which  might  conflict  with  the  interests  of  the  paying  agency  or  with  a 
person's position as a public servant;  

•  engage  in  outside  activities  involving  the  use  of  official  experience,  without  first 
obtaining the consent at Director level.  

•  hold directorships in, or undertake work in public or private companies, firms or other 
organisations without first obtaining the consent at Director level.  

•  when  accepting  appointments  in  a  personal  capacity,  employees  need  to  convince 
their  Director  that  there  is  no  conflict  of  interests.  There  should  be  no  question  of 
financial  exposure  for  the  paying  agency  or  government  body.  Employees  may  not 
engage  in  consultancy  work  on  behalf  of  any  company  with  which  the  paying 
agency/government department has a contractual relationship.  

i.  Business Interests Register  

Each  year  agencies/government  departments  are  required  to  undertake  an  exercise  to 
establish whether agency employees (permanent employees and contingent workers) or 
their close  family have  business interests, shareholdings or any other  personal interests 
that could lead to a potential conflict with their duties as government employees. 

j.  Sanctions  

If a person fails to declare a business interest and is subsequently involved in an incident 
which  uncovers  such  an  interest,  then  the  failure  to  declare  may  be  interpreted  as  an 
attempt to deliberately mislead or defraud the agency.  

k.  Does  the  policy  and  guidance  cover  the  entire  procurement  process  and  the 
management of subsequent contracts? 

Guidance  explains  that  all  members  of  staff  must  register  any  potential  conflict  of 
interest  in  the  staff  register  of  interests  and  register  any  interests  as  they  arise.  On  an 
annual basis, an exercise is undertaken to ensure the register is complete.  

76 

 
 
With regard to procurement, before the evaluation exercise commences, each member of 
the tender evaluation panel must declare any interests relating to the bids that have been 
received. This includes any previous and current connections with any of the companies 
that have submitted a bid. The chairperson of the Evaluation Panel in consultation with 
the  Commercial  Team  of  the  paying  agency/government  body  will  decide  whether  the 
panel  member  should  be  removed  from  the  panel.  All  declarations  of  interests  are 
formally recorded in the tender evaluation report for audit purposes.  

All procurements are carried out in a fair and transparent way to ensure that a clear audit 
trail  of  documentation  exists.  All  purchases  over  a  certain  financial  amount  within  the 
government  department/agency  are  managed  by  a  dedicated  commercial  unit  to  ensure 
purchasing is carried out within procurement guidelines set out by the European Union 
and the UK Government.  Major  purchasing  and contract  management is  overseen by a 
senior  manager.  There  is  segregation  of  duties  throughout  the  buying  process  which 
includes  strict  demarcation  between  the  business  area,  the  budget  holder  and  the  those 
responsible for commercial approval. 

For  the  evaluation  of  procurement,  the  terms  of  reference  are  on  a  specific  part  of  the 
government departments' intranets. Before commencement of an evaluation, the conflict 
of  interests  and  the  declaration  of  an  interest  is  looked  at.  Each  member  of  the  tender 
evaluation panel will be asked to declare whether they have any declaration of interests 
related to any of the bids received. This may include past or current financial connections 
with any of the companies that have submitted a bid. The chairperson of the Evaluation 
Panel, in consultation with the Commercial Team will decide if the panel member should 
be removed from the panel. All declarations of interests will be recorded formally in the 
tender evaluation report for audit purposes.  

Contract management on a day-to-day basis is carried out by service managers within the 
business  area.  Any  contract  changes  or  escalations  for  the  contract  are  directed  via  the 
senior  manager  from  the  service  manager.  These  will  require  further  internal  approval 
before sign off.  

All  employees  are  required  to  make  an  electronic  declaration  each  year  as  to  whether 
they  or  close  family  or  friends  have  business  interests.  If  an  interest  is  declared  the 
employee is required to provide full written details on a standard form which is then sent 
to their managers to ensure controls are put in place to mitigate potential risks. The form 
is  then  submitted  to  the  Human  Resources  department  where  a  central  register  is 
maintained. 

The Human Resources department will keep under review the management of controls in 
place to ensure consistency and as part of the assurance programme. All declarations are 
risk assessed and a risk rating derived by using the dedicated risk profiling for business 
interests  in  addition  to  a  comparison  across  sensitive  posts  and  security  registers  to 
provide an overall view of the potential risk of that individual based on their official role 
and the business interests declared.  

77 

 
 
Individual  case  files  are  held  by  the  Human  Resources  Department.  Files  that  relate  to 
fraud,  irregularities  and  cases  relevant  to  the  Civil  Service  Code  are  also  held  by  the 
Head of Internal Audit.  

l.  What  guidance  has  been  issued  to  implement  and  support  the  policy  on  conflicts  of 
interest? 

Paying agencies review guidance annually. It is re-issued to all staff on the intranet at the 
start of the financial year. There is standing guidance on the electronic recording system 
that  all  employees  are  required  to  read  before  they  are  allowed  to  make  their 
declarations.  A  case  study  which  discusses  various  issues  that  can  arise  due  to  a  non-
registration  of  an  interest  has  been  used  to  raise  awareness.  New  staff  are  given  a 
welcome  pack  which  includes  sections  on  conduct  and  discipline.  Staff  are  required  to 
read the conduct and security sections of the staff handbook when they join the paying 
agency. 

m. Does the guidance cover how to "deal" with anyone who fails to disclose a conflict of 
interests or makes a false declaration?  

The  guidance  does  not  specifically  cover  this,  as  cases  are  referred  to  an  independent 
caseworker or internal fraud investigators depending on the severity of the alleged breach 
of  the  policy.  Each  department  or  agency  then  follows  its  own  specific  procedures  for 
dealing  with  breaches  of  the  policy.  Case  officers  are  specifically  trained  to  deal  with 
such  cases  and  are  supported  by  experienced  colleagues  to  ensure  all  cases  are 
effectively investigated and concluded. 

3.3.2.  Managing Authority's kick-off meeting with contract manager 

Denmark chose to refer to the reply to recommendation 3 in the 2014 Annual Report on 
the Protection of the European Union’s financial interests.15  The reply  contains  several 
practical  examples  of  preventive  measures  to  combat  fraud.  One  example  is  the  anti-
fraud  policy.  This  involves,  among  other  things,  contact  details  in  the  Managing 
Authority, to be used in the event of a specific suspicion of fraud. The anti-fraud policy 
document  will  be  issued  at  the  kick-off  meeting  with  the  contract  manager,  when  the 
contract for EU co-funding is also handed out. The purpose of the kick-off meeting is to 
identify  and  draw  attention  to  particular  risk  areas  in  the  project  process  and 
administration,  where  experience  suggests  that  irregularities  can  occur.  The  most 
important  documents  and  declarations  used  for  implementing  the  project  will  be 
distributed and reviewed at the meeting. Some of the content of the kick-off meeting is 
tailored to the specific projects, based on an assessment of the particular error risks in the 
project in question.  

The agenda may include the following topics: 

15  

See Commission Staff Working Document Follow-up of recommendations to the Commission report on 
the protection of the EU’s financial interests – fight against fraud, 2014. 

78 

 
 
                                                            
  State aid 
  Bidding process  
  Timesheets  
  Salary calculations 
  Contract staff  
  Start and end dates for social fund projects  
  Parties with common interests 

In addition, the participants will go through the entire project process, from application 
to final accounts and reporting, audit and disbursement (see figure below).  

All project managers who sign a contract for EU co-funding will also attend a course at 
the  centrally  appointed  auditor,  Deloitte.  The  course  is  paid  for  by  the  Managing 
Authority. Course participants receive training in areas which often prove to be a source 
of errors in the project accounts. They are also taken through the various administrative 
challenges. The course provides knowledge and inspiration for the practical project work 
and  the  organisation  of  internal  controls  and  procedures  that  will  help  to  prevent 
irregularities.

79 

 
 
 
80