COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT Accompanying the document REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN COURT OF AUDITORS, THE COUNCIL AND THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT Member States' replies to the Court of Auditors' 2015 Annual Report
Date: 2017-02-27
Institutions: Directorate-General for Budget, European Commission
Subjects: EU Member State, European Court of Auditors, activity report, control of State aid, financial management, general budget (EU), implementation of the budget, management audit

EN 

   EN 

   EUROPEAN COMMISSION  Brussels, 27.2.2017  SWD(2017) 101 final   COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT Accompanying the document REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN COURT OF AUDITORS, THE COUNCIL AND THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT Member States' replies to the Court of Auditors' 2015 Annual Report {COM(2017) 120 final}  
 
 
Table of Contents 

1. 

2. 

3. 

4. 

INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................ 3 

KEY  FEATURES  OF  THE  EUROPEAN  COURT  OF  AUDITORS'  ANNUAL  REPORT  FOR 
THE 2015 FINANCIAL YEAR .......................................................................................... 3 

KEY FEATURES OF THE MEMBER STATES' REPLIES ................................................... 5 

CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................ 5 

ANNEX I – MEMBER STATES' REPLIES TO PARAGRAPHS IN THE 2015 ANNUAL REPORT AND 
FOR  EACH  OF  THE 2015  FINDINGS  MADE  BY  THE EUROPEAN COURT  OF AUDITORS 
REFERRING TO EACH PARTICULAR COUNTRY ............................................................. 7 

CHAPTER 1 – The statement of assurance and supporting information ...................... 7 

CHAPTER 2 – Budgetary and financial managemen .................................................. 13 

CHAPTER 3 – Getting results from the EU budget ..................................................... 29 

CHAPTER 4 – Revenue ................................................................................................ 46 

CHAPTER 6 – Economic, social and territorial cohesion ........................................... 74 

CHAPTER 7 – Natural resources ................................................................................ 94 

CHAPTER 8 – Global Europe and Security and citizenship ..................................... 111 

ANNEX II – TEMPLATE USED FOR THE MEMBER STATES QUESTIONNAIRE ...................... 113 

ANNEX  III  –  MEMBER  STATES'  REPLIES  TO  QUESTIONS  THAT  HAVE  BEEN  INCLUDED  IN 
PART A OF THE QUESTIONNAIRE ............................................................................ 121 

Austria ........................................................................................................................ 121 

Belgium ....................................................................................................................... 128 

Bulgaria ...................................................................................................................... 135 

Croatia ....................................................................................................................... 179 

Cyprus ........................................................................................................................ 186 

Czech Republic ........................................................................................................... 195 

Denmark ..................................................................................................................... 207 

Estonia ........................................................................................................................ 218 

Finland ....................................................................................................................... 227 

France ........................................................................................................................ 235 

Germany ..................................................................................................................... 248 

Greece ........................................................................................................................ 258 

 
 
 
Hungary ...................................................................................................................... 276 

Ireland ........................................................................................................................ 287 

Italy ............................................................................................................................. 294 

Latvia .......................................................................................................................... 301 

Lithuania .................................................................................................................... 310 

Luxembourg ................................................................................................................ 324 

Malta .......................................................................................................................... 336 

Netherlands ................................................................................................................ 343 

Poland ........................................................................................................................ 351 

Portugal ...................................................................................................................... 372 

Romania ..................................................................................................................... 388 

Slovakia ...................................................................................................................... 411 

Slovenia ...................................................................................................................... 428 

Spain ........................................................................................................................... 441 

Sweden ........................................................................................................................ 453 

United Kingdom ......................................................................................................... 460 

ANNEX IV – MEMBER STATES' REPLIES TO PART B OF THE QUESTIONNAIRE ................. 468 

Denmark ..................................................................................................................... 469 

Germany ..................................................................................................................... 469 

Netherlands ................................................................................................................ 469 

Poland ........................................................................................................................ 469 

Sweden ........................................................................................................................ 470 

 
 
 
 
1. 

INTRODUCTION 

The  present  Staff  Working  Document  accompanies  the  Report  from  the  Commission  on  the 
Member States' replies to the Court of Auditors' 2015 Annual report1. 

The  Treaty  of  the  Functioning  of  the  European  Union  (TFEU)  requires  that  "the  Commission 
shall  implement  the  budget  in  cooperation  with  the  Member  States,  in  accordance  with  the 
provisions of the regulations made pursuant to Article 322, on its own responsibility and within 
the limits of the appropriations, having regard to the principles of sound financial management. 
Member States shall cooperate with the Commission to ensure that the appropriations are used in 
accordance with the principles of sound financial management"2. 

The  TFEU  also  requires  that  the  Court  of  Auditors  shall  carry  out  the  audit  of  the  European 
Union's finances. The Court of Auditors shall provide the European Parliament and the Council 
with a statement of assurance as to the reliability of the accounts and the legality and regularity 
of  the  underlying  transactions,  which  is  a  central  part  of  the  Court's  annual  report3.  The  Court 
supplements this statement with specific assessments of each major area of EU activity. 

In accordance with Article 162(5) of the Financial Regulation4, the Commission shall inform the 
Member  States  concerned  of  the  details  of  the  Court's  annual  report,  which  relate  to  the 
management of funds for which they are responsible.  

2. 

KEY  FEATURES  OF  THE  EUROPEAN  COURT  OF  AUDITORS'  ANNUAL  REPORT 

FOR THE 2015 FINANCIAL YEAR 

The Court issued a clean opinion on the reliability of the EU accounts5, as it has done since 2007. 
Revenue  was  free  from  material  error.  For  expenditure,  the  Court  found  an  estimated  level  of 
error for 2015 payments of 3,8 %, which is lower than in 2014 (4,4 %), see table 1. 

Table 1 – Estimated levels of error in the Court's 2015 Annual report 

MFF heading 

Transactions subject to 
audit (billion EUR) 

Estimated level of 
error 2015 (%) 

Estimated level of 
error 2014 (%) 

1a. Competitiveness 

1b. Cohesion 

14,5 

53,9 

4,4 

5,2 

5,6 

5,7 

1 COM(2017) 120 final of 27.2.2017. 

2 Article 317 of the TFEU. 

3 Articles 285 to 287 of the TFEU. 

4 Article 162(5) of Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 966/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 
October  2012  on  the  financial  rules  applicable  to  the  general  budget  of  the  Union  and  repealing  Council 
Regulation  (EC,  Euratom)  No  1605/2002  (Financial  Regulation):  "As  soon  as  the  Court  of  Auditors  has 
transmitted  the  annual  report,  the  Commission  shall  immediately  inform  the  Member  States  concerned  of  the 
details  of  that  report  which  relate  to  management  of  the  funds  for  which  they  are  responsible  under  the 
applicable rules. Following receipt of such information, the Member States shall reply to the Commission within 
60 days. The Commission shall transmit a summary of that information to the Court of Auditors, the  European 
Parliament and the Council by 28 February." 

5 Paragraph 1.6 of the ECA's annual report for the 2015 financial year. 

3 

 
 
 
                                                 
2. Natural resources 

4. Global Europe 

5. Administration 

Other 

Total 

Revenue 

58,6 

6,9 

9,0 

3,0 

145,9 

153,8 

2,9 

2,8 

0,6 

- 

3,8 

0 

3,6  

2,7 

0,5 

- 

4,4  

0 

Administrative expenditure had the lowest estimated level of error (0,6 %) while expenditure for 
almost  all  remaining  headings  was  affected  by  material  error  (above  2  %).  For  Competiveness, 
Cohesion  and  Natural  Resources  the  estimated  levels  of  error  all  represented  a  decrease  on 
equivalent  results  in  20146  whereas  the  estimated  level  of  error  for  Global  Europe  slightly 
increased  by  0,1  %.  Cohesion  was  the  biggest  contributor  to  the  overall  error  rate  followed  by 
Natural  Resources,  Competitiveness  and  Global  Europe.  This  distribution  is  in  line  with  the 
Court's findings for the 2014 financial year7. 

The Court found that the different risk patterns of reimbursement and entitlement schemes, rather 
than management modes, influences the level of errors in the different spending areas8. It stated 
that the differences between the two bases for payments – cost reimbursement and entitlement – 
explain  a  large  part  of  the  variation  in  the  estimated  level  of  error.  In  particular,  the  Court 
continues  to  find  that  reimbursement  spending  is  affected  by  much  higher  levels  of  errors  then 
spending on an entitlement basis (the level of error  for reimbursement is 5,2  % while 1,9% for 
entitlement  ).  According  to  the  Court's  report,  typical  errors  for  reimbursement  spending  cover 
ineligible costs included in cost claims, ineligible projects, activities and beneficiaries, as well as 
serious  infringements  of  public  procurement  rules.  Typical  errors  for  entitlement  spending 
include small over-declarations of areas by farmers9. 

The  Court  takes  account  of  corrective  measures  applied  by  the  Member  States  and  the 
Commission  only  where  these  are  made  prior  to  payment  or  to  Court's  examination.  The 
"corrective  action  by  authorities  in  the  Member  States  and  by  the  Commission  had  a  positive 
impact on the estimated level of error. Otherwise, it would have been above 4 %"10. 

The Court stressed that "EU citizens need to know that every euro spent on their behalf is being 
spent well first time around and to best possible effect. That also means ensuring that sufficient 
funds  can  be  directed  to  agreed  policy  priorities,  with  enough  in  reserve  to  cope  with  a  crisis. 
Under  the  current  arrangements,  both  have  proved  difficult".  While  welcoming  again  the 
Commission initiative on "Budget Focused on Results", the Court "underlines that the dimension 
of value for money is still lacking"11. 

6 Paragraph 1.19 of the ECA's annual report for the 2015 financial year. 

7 Paragraphs 1.19 to 1.33 of the ECA's annual report for the 2015 financial year. 

8 Paragraph 1.25 of the ECA's annual report for the 2015 financial year. 

9 Paragraphs 1.21 to 1.33 of the ECA's annual report for the 2015 financial year. 

10 Paragraphs 1.42 to 1.43 of the ECA's annual report for the 2015 financial year, and ECA speech by President 
Lehne to the CONT, Brussels 13/10/2016.  

11 ECA speech by President Lehne to the CONT, Brussels 13/10/2016 and Chapter 3 "Getting results from the 
EU budget", paragraphs 6.77 to 6.89 and 7.68 to 7.76 of the ECA's annual report for the 2015 financial year.  

 
 
 
                                                 
Finally,  the  Court  noted  that  its  recommendations  to  Member  States  raise  awareness  and  get 
through to Member State level, but there is a wide variation in the level of formal follow-up and 
only moderate evidence of changes in national policy and practice12. 

3. 

KEY FEATURES OF THE MEMBER STATES' REPLIES 

The  Commission  informed  the  Member  States  concerned  of  the  details  of  the  Court's  annual 
report for the financial year of 2015. This information was presented in the form of a letter and 
three annexes to be completed by each Member State, as well as  accompanying guidelines on 
the preparation and presentation of replies to the questionnaires. 

Annex I of the letter to the Member States was a questionnaire on the paragraphs referring to the 
individual  Member  State.  The  information  on  which  paragraph  refers  to  which  country  was 
provided  by  the  Court  of  Auditors.  Although  the  Court  highlighted  paragraphs  related  to  all 
policy areas, the Member States' replies focused mostly on the Court's paragraphs concerning the 
policy  areas  of  Revenues,  Common  Agricultural  Policy,  and  Economic,  social  and  territorial 
cohesion. The replies of the Member States were generally extensive and are enclosed in Annex I 
of the present SWD. 

Annex II of the letter to the Member States was a questionnaire on audit findings, which refer to 
each  Member  State.  These  findings  were  mostly  related  to  the  major  EU  spending  areas  of 
agriculture and cohesion policy. They were previously provided by the Court of Auditors to the 
Member States in the form of Statements of Preliminary Findings (SPFs). Therefore, the Member 
States'  replies  can  be  considered  as  a  follow-up  to  all  actions  undertaken  while  addressing  the 
Court's  findings.  Member  States  reported  that  actions  have  already  been  taken  and  were  either 
completed  or  on-going.  However,  for  some  of  the  findings  Member  States  replied  that  actions 
were not undertaken because they did not receive yet the respective final positions of the Court 
of Auditors. 

Annex III of the letter to Member States was a questionnaire focusing on three main themes: 

(1)  regularity  of  transactions  in  the  major  EU  spending  areas  in  shared  management  with  a 
particular focus on root causes of errors;  

(2) performance of the EU budget highlighting on the one hand links between EU priorities in the 
context  of  the  Europe  2020  strategy  for  smart,  sustainable  and  inclusive  growth  and  national 
priorities, and, on the other hand performance at project level in shared management;  

(3) follow-up of the Court's recommendations to Member States. 

The  template  of  the  questionnaire  is  provided  in  Annex  II  of  the  present  SWD.  The  Member 
States' replies to part A of the questionnaire are available in Annex III and those concerning part 
B of the questionnaire are in Annex IV of the present SWD. 

4. 

CONCLUSION 

The Commission is committed to continue closely working with the Member States towards 
lower levels of error, improved financial management and value added of the EU budget. 

12 Paragraphs 3.78 to 3.85 of the ECA's annual report for the 2015 financial year. 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
 
 
 
ANNEX I – MEMBER STATES' REPLIES TO PARAGRAPHS IN THE 2015 ANNUAL REPORT AND FOR EACH OF THE 2015 FINDINGS MADE 
BY THE EUROPEAN COURT OF AUDITORS REFERRING TO EACH PARTICULAR COUNTRY 

CHAPTER 1 – The statement of assurance and supporting information 

Paragraphs 

Observations in the 2015 
Court's Annual Report 

Figure 1.1 

2015  EU  spending 
in  each 
Member State as a share of gross 
national 
(GNI)  and 
general government expenditure. 

income 

Member States' replies 

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

Bulgaria: Action taken: ; Action completed: ; Completion date: 

The information is for information purposes only and no measures are required. 

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

No comment, no specific finding. 

Denmark: Action taken: ; Action completed: ; Completion date: 

In  our  view,  the  figure  depicts  a  factual  situation,  and  any  comments  on  whether  action  has  been  taken  are  therefore 
irrelevant. 

Estonia: Action taken: YES; Action completed: YES; Completion date: 31/12/2014 

Finland: Action taken: ; Action completed: ; Completion date: 

No comments. 

France: Action taken: OUI; Action completed: OUI; Completion date:N/A 

Germany: Action taken: ; Action completed: ; Completion date: 

For information purposes only; no answer required. 

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

Factual finding that does not require action. 

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

No action required. 

 
 
 
 
Latvia: Action taken: ; Action completed: ; Completion date: 

No comment - statistical information provided 

Luxembourg: Action taken: ; Action completed: ; Completion date: 
n/a 

Netherlands: Action taken: ; Action completed: ; Completion date: 

Not applicable. 

Poland: Action taken: ; Action completed: ; Completion date: 

This observation does not include any specific reservations against Poland. 

Portugal: Action taken: ; Action completed: ; Completion date: 

Nothing relevant to report.  

Slovakia: Action taken: ; Action completed: ; Completion date: 

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

Sweden: Action taken: NO; Action completed: ; Completion date: 

This observation does not require Sweden to take action. 

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

None. 

Austria:  Action taken: YES; Action completed: NO; Completion date: 31 March 2017;  

A financial correction will be made with the final application for payment. 

Bulgaria: Action taken: ; Action completed: ; Completion date: 

The information is for information purposes only and no measures are required. 

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

No comment, no specific finding. 

Denmark: Action taken: YES; Action completed: ; Completion date: 

The Annex presents an overview of the errors detected in the Member States. No conclusive answer can thus be given on 
which measures have been taken. 

8 

Annex 1.3 

Frequency  of  detected  errors  in 
audit  sampling  for 
the  year 
2015. 

 
 
Finland: Action taken: YES; Action completed: YES; Completion date:- 

The inspection findings are explained in Annex II. 

France: Action taken: OUI; Action completed: OUI pour FEAGA, NON pour FEADER; Completion date: 

Concernant  le  FSE,  les  taux  d’erreur  constatés  (100% ;  11,74% et  18,75%)  sont  importants.  Cela  s’explique  par  le 
caractère  très  ancien  des  dossiers  ayant  été  sélectionnés  (par  exemple,  le  dossier  pour  lequel  le  taux  de  100  % 
d’irrégularité  est  constaté  a  été  conventionné  en  2002)  et  par  l’absence  de  pièces  justificatives  tenant  à  un  défaut 
d’archivage  après  un  nombre  d’années  non  négligeable  et  la  disparition  de  certaines  structures  initialement  parties  au 
contrat compte tenu des modifications institutionnelles intervenues. 

Dans  le  cadre  du  plan  d’actions  FEAGA  et  de  la  réforme  de  2015,  les  autorités  françaises  ont  procédé  à  la  refonte 
complète  de  leur  SIPA.  L’exercice  a  consisté  en  la  photo  interprétation  de  l’ensemble  du  territoire  national  afin 
d’identifier et d’exclure l’ensemble des SNA. En cas de doute, une visite rapide était organisée sur le terrain. 

De  plus  conformément  aux  nouvelles  dispositions  réglementaires  pour  la  campagne  2015  la  notion  de  prorata  a  été 
introduite pour évaluer le taux d’admissibilité des parcelles peu productives. 

Par ailleurs la procédure de contrôle administratif des aides aux ovins a été complétée et intègre depuis la campagne 2015 
le contrôle du ratio de productivité. 

Enfin, l’algorithme de calcul des droits à paiement a été mis en conformité. 

S’agissant du FEADER, un plan d’actions est en cours et a d’ores et déjà donné lieu au cadrage du contrôle du caractère 
raisonnable des coûts. 

En revanche, 6 des erreurs relevées par la Cour sur le développement rural concernent la question de la  supervision du 
contrôle administratif du fait de l’absence de contrôle hiérarchique lors des contrôles administratifs sur le dossier audité. 

Effectivement, comme elles l’ont expliqué à la Cour, les autorités françaises, dans un objectif d’efficience, avaient mis en 
place un dispositif de supervision des dossiers par sondage. 

En l’espèce, les dossiers audités par la Cour n’avaient pas été sélectionnés au titre du plan de supervision. 

La cour a considéré que le règlement 886/2006, annexe 1 point 2 A ii exigeait une supervision hiérarchique systématique 
de chaque dossier et que la pratique française était irrégulière. 

Il convient de rappeler que  le règlement 885/2006 a été remplacé par le règlement 907/2014. 

Les dispositions précitées ont été précisées et dorénavant le travail de supervision hiérarchique peut être « fondé sur un 
échantillon, un système ou un programme, effectué par un membre de l’encadrement supérieur » ( cf annexe 1 point 2 A 
ii du reg 907/2014). 

Les  autorités  françaises  considèrent  que  l’évolution  réglementaire  valide  la  pratique  française  qui  ne  nécessite  pas 

9 

 
 
d’évolution. 

Germany: Action taken: ; Action completed: ; Completion date: 

See the answers in Annex II. It should be noted that any rectifications made by national authorities or any (corrective) 
measures already taken have not had any (positive) impact on the above figures. 

Hungary: Action taken: YES; Action completed: ; Completion date: Continuous 

We are monitoring the detected errors. 

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

With regard to heading 1, no errors were found in Ireland’s audit sampling. This is mainly due to the fact that Ireland’s 
funding  programmes  are  primarily  channelled  through  government  departments  and/or  State  bodies,  and  as  such  are 
subject to full national control and audits. With regard to heading 2, out of the eight transactions examined, zero were 
found to be affected by error. Therefore, no action required. 

Latvia: Action taken: YES; Action completed: NO; Completion date: 

The report on Audit No PF-7153 indicated that in one of the four projects checked a number of shortcomings had been 
ascertained relating to State aid (two of the three parts of the observation have been retained: the maximum aid intensity 
has  been  exceeded  and  there  is  no  incentive  effect  that  would  justify  increasing  support  by  10 %).  When  providing 
comments on the draft report, the Latvian authorities set out their arguments and provided supporting documentation, but 
the final audit report still contains the previously drafted findings.  Therefore, following consultations with the authorities 
concerned, the ECA will be sent the managing authority’s position on the information contained in the report. Given that 
the  European  Commission  is  responsible  for  coordinating  recommendations  made  in  ECA  audits,  if  necessary  the 
information and views collated at national level will also be sent to the European Commission. 

Lithuania: Action taken: YES; Action completed: ; Completion date: 

See individual observations for answers. 

Netherlands: Action taken: ; Action completed: ; Completion date: 

Not applicable. 

Poland: Action taken: ; Action completed: ; Completion date: 

This observation does not include any specific reservations against Poland. 

Portugal: Action taken: ; Action completed: ; Completion date: 

Nothing relevant to report.  

10 

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

MFE  (the  Ministry  of  European  Funds):  For  the  Sectoral  Operational  Programme  Human  Resources  Development, 
further to the audit recommendations, both the Managing and the Certifying and Paying Authorities apply corrections to 
the  Payment  Applications  sent  to  COM  for  this  operational  programme,  pursuant  to  the  financial  impact  established 
further to the findings of the auditing entities included in the system and operation audit reports. 

For  the  extrapolated  error  rates,  the  Certifying  and  Paying  Authority  applies  flat-rate  corrections  for  the  affected 
categories within the Payment Applications sent to COM. Flat-rate corrections have been undertaken by the Government 
of Romania through the Decisions on the application of financial corrections under the Sectoral Operational Programme 
“Human Resources Development” (SOP HRD) 2007-2013. (e.g.: Government Decision No 652/2015). 

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

Action was taken in response to the type of infringement. The way in which the action was taken is described below 
(Annex II). 

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

Stated observation, which refers to Slovenia, was delivered and presented by ECA in the context of audit report OP SI-
AT (audit code PF 7177). Since the national audit authority has already identified the problem before the audit has been 
carried out by the ECA, the recovery process has already started, and the error hasn't been quantitatively defined. More 
detailed information, concerning the aforementioned observation is stated in Annex II – Observation 1. 

Spain: Action taken: ; Action completed: ; Completion date: 

ERDF and COHESION 

With  regard  to  the  Court’s  observation  1.22  that  most  of  the  errors  detected  in  2015  are  eligibility  errors  relating  to 
reimbursable  costs,  we  consider  that  the  prior  verification  of  expenditure  succeeds  in  screening  most  of  the  ineligible 
expense declared, although audit tasks, which are much more detailed and exhaustive, detect non-eligible expenses that 
constitute  irregularities.  If  the  error  rate  exceeds  2 %  the  Programme  is  interrupted,  the  payments  cease  and  the 
Programme  does  not  resume  until  the  necessary  measures  have  been  taken  and  all  the  irregular  expenses  have  been 
withdrawn. These irregularities include any error in public procurement rules, not only the most serious. It is not true that 
ineligible projects, activities and beneficiaries are included, since the criteria for approving the projects are very rigorous 
and the assessment of the management systems very exhaustive. 

As regards the Court’s observation No 1.40 that in 2015, €1.2 billion of the corrections and recoveries reported by the 
Commission were made ‘at source’ (applied before the expenditure was accepted), we would argue that the deductions of 
ineligible expenses refused in the administrative checks prior to certification of the eligible expenses are never deemed to 
be irregularities and are not therefore deemed to be withdrawn as irregular expenses. 

11 

 
 
Sweden: Action taken: NO; Action completed: ; Completion date: 

This observation does not require Sweden to take action. 

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

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

12 

 
 
 
 
 
CHAPTER 2 – Budgetary and financial managemen 

Paragraphs 

Observations in the 2015 
Court's Annual Report 

Member States' replies 

Paragraph 
2.17 – 
footnote 20 

outstanding 
of 

amount 
The 
(‘stock’) 
commitments 
equivalent to nearly two and half 
times  the  amount  recorded  in 
one year (the ‘flow’). 

(20)  For  cohesion  spending  on 
operational programmes adopted 
the  2007-2013  MFF 
under 
automatic decommitment should 
be made on an N+2 basis for all 
Member  States  except  Croatia, 
Romania  and  Slovakia  (where 
an N+3 rule applies). 

Romania: Action taken: YES (MFE+ROP (Regional Operational Programme)):; Action completed: NO (MFE); 
Completion date: 

ROP:  For  the  Regional  Operational  Programme  2007-2013,  by  the  end  of  2014,  the  implemented  amounts  were 
equivalent to or exceeded the cumulative annual allocation, also taking into consideration the top-up transferred by the 
European Commission. 

In 2015, under the Regional Operational Programme 2007-2013, there was no risk of decommitment of foreign grants, 
the pre-financing granted that needed to be justified at the end of the programme implementation being deducted from 
the total allocated amounts. 

The  pre-financing  granted  under  the  Regional  Operational  Programme  2007-2013  will  be  partially  closed  through  the 
final statement of expenditure.    

MFE:  The  change  in  the  application  of  the  rule  regarding  the  decommitment  of  funds  for  Romania  and  Slovakia  was 
voted by the European Parliament on 20 November 2013. This change applied to commitments for 2011 and 2012, which 
means that Romania could spend the European funds allocated for 2011 by 31 December 2014 and those allocated for 
2012 by 31 December 2015. The extension of the n+3 rule did not also result in the extension of the final deadline for the 
spending of the European funds allocated in the programming period 2007 – 2013, which remained unchanged, namely 
31 December 2015. 

As regards the amounts paid by COM as pre-financing, they will be fully cancelled from COM accounts upon closure of 
the  operational  programmes,  pursuant  to  the  terms  of  payment  of  the  final  balance,  as  provided  by  the  European 
regulations applying to this programming period. 

Slovakia: Action taken: ; Action completed: ; Completion date: 

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

COM reply 
to paragraph 
2.18 

For  cohesion  the  final  date  of 
eligibility is 31 December 2015. 
Closure  documents  must  be 
submitted  by  31  March  2017. 
Regulation  (EU)  No  1083/2006 

13 

 
 
 
 
foresees  that  a  share  of  5  %  of 
the 
is 
total  EU  allocation 
the 
retained  until  closure  of 
programme. 

automatic 

States.  This 

The  co-legislators  decided 
to 
amend the regulation and extend 
the  N+2 
de-
commitment  deadline  for  two 
Member 
has 
reduced  the  pressure  on  these 
Member  States 
submit 
payment  claims  within  a  shorter 
reference  period.  Additionally, 
Croatia’s accession treaty allows 
an  exception  to  the  automatic 
de-commitment 
It  also 
provides for N + 3. 

rule. 

to 

Paragraph 
2.19 – 
footnote 23 

Finally,  a  taskforce  for  better 
implementation  was  set  up  in 
2014  to  help  Member  States 
optimise  the  use  of  the  2007-
policy 
Cohesion 
2013 
envelopes.  Progress 
is  being 
monitored by the Commission. 

Five  Member  States  account  for 
more  than  half  of  the  unused 
commitments  of  ESI  funds  that 
have not led to payment. 

(23)  Czech  Republic,  Spain, 
Italy,  Poland  and  Romania 
account for 27,9 billion euro out 
the 
of  45,4  billion  euro  of 
unused  commitments  of  the  ESI 
funds. 

Czech Republic: Action taken: YES; Action completed: YES; Completion date: 31 December 2015 (implementation of 
projects yet to be completed) 

The action take includes the use of a 10% flexibility limit in the context of individual priority axes. Another measure was 
the  use  of  invoices  on  account,  which  helped  to  maximise  implementation  of  the  funds  by  the  end  of  2015.  Based  on 
discussions as part of the activities of the Commission’s Task Force on Better Implementation steps were taken to ensure 
that retrospective and uncompleted projects could be used. In the case of the three programmes, phased projects (large 
and small scale) were implemented. A further important factor in making the disbursement of EU funds more effective 
was  strengthening  communication  with  the  beneficiaries.  This,  in  addition  the  actual  disbursement,  has  led  to 
improvements in the quality of the projects themselves. 

14 

 
 
Poland: Action taken: ; Action completed: ; Completion date: 

This observation does not include any specific reservations against Poland. 

Romania: Action taken: YES- MFE+ROP; Action completed: NO- MFE; Completion date: 

ROP: The projected absorption at ROP level is 93.14% of the amount allocated under the programme. 
The estimated absorption, without considering the EC top-up support, is 85.53%. 
The Managing  Authority for the Regional  Operational  Programme 2007-2013 took the following  measures in order to 
increase the absorption of foreign grants: 
- identifying financial measures in order to ensure the financing of the beneficiaries’ own contribution within the project, 
namely loans taken out by the beneficiaries from the privatisation revenues, for the purpose of the complete fulfilment of 
the objectives and indicators of the projects and in order to ensure their operation; 
- providing the necessary funding for payments through loans from other operational programmes and from the Fund for 
Temporary  Unavailability  set  up  at  the  Certifying  and  Paying  Authority,  which  were  covered  subsequently  from  the 
foreign grants reimbursed by the European Commission; 
- using the mechanism for the settlement of payment applications;  
-  covering  the  financial  corrections  from  the  state  budget  for  beneficiaries  whose  public  procurement  contracts  were 
endorsed by UCVAP (Public Procurement Verification and Coordination Unit) and ANRMAP (National Authority  for 
Regulating and Monitoring Public Procurement).   
MFE: Note: For the Cohesion Policy funds 
The statement presented on 31 December 2015 regarding the absorption rate of European funds is not the final statement 
regarding the absorption rate for the financial period 2007–2013. 

Although the eligibility period for expenditure made within operational programmes 2007-2013 ended on 31 December 
2015, Romania, as any Member State having received EU grants in the period 2007-2013, may declare to the European 
Commission,  by  31  March  2017,  the  expenditure  made  by  the  beneficiaries  within  the  projects  financed  under  these 
programmes. Thus, the final absorption rate may be determined only after COM has accepted the final closure package, 
to be sent by the Member State by the end of March 2017. 

Spain: Action taken: ; Action completed: ; Completion date: 

ERDF and COHESION 

Firstly, the Operational Programmes relating to the 2007-2013 Financial Framework were already being concluded, since 
the eligibility deadline for expenditure was 31 December 2015. The cost statements were therefore quite a lot lower than 
the  previous  year.  Many  of  the  expenses  implemented  in  2015  were  reserved  for  declaration  in  the  2014-2020 
Programmes. However, the delay in approval of the Programmes and of the Management and Control Systems prevented 

15 

 
 
expenditure from being certified in the period 2014-2020. 

Secondly, an error rate of over 2 % in the Annual Audit Report means that payment of this Programme is interrupted and 
an Action Plan has to be designed to detect, remove and improve the management shortcomings that have led to this error 
rate. This procedure can take 6-8 months and this is what causes these significant delays in using the Funds. Specifically, 
in 2015 in the ERDF there were interruptions and suspensions of payments at some intermediate bodies which meant that 
it was not possible to declare the amounts corresponding to the expenditure implemented by these bodies. However, once 
the validated action plans had been implemented, the corresponding ERDF payments will be received. 

ESF 

With  regard  to  Spain,  there  are  two  suspensions  of  payment  of  two  intermediate  bodies  for  significant  amounts. 
Accordingly, until these suspensions are lifted, the amount of the payments represents a level of implementation much 
lower than the actual implementation level. In this connection, after the last interim payment application for all the ESF 
operational  programmes  under  the  2007-2013  MFF,  the  percentage  of  expenditure  declared  for  the  ESF  as  of  30  June 
2016 with regard to the updated amount of the programmed aid was 99.75 %. 

EFF  

The  2007-2013  EFF  is  currently  in  the  closure  process.  The  unused  commitments  were  due  to  the  economic  crisis  in 
Spain. 

Figure 2.6 

Absorption  in  %  and  totals  of 
2007-2013 MFF ESI funds at 31 
December 2015. 

Austria:  
With regard to the ESF 
Action taken: YES; Action completed: NO; Completion date: With regard to the ESF - 31 March 2017 
With regard to the ESF and the final application for payment. 

With regard to the ERDF 
Action taken: NO; Action completed:; Completion date: 
In accordance with the relevant provisions, applications for final payment should be submitted to the European 
Commission by 31 March 2017 at the latest. Until then, the European Commission will only reimburse 95 %. In the case 
of the ERDF, Austria has essentially reached the 95 % ceiling. 

With regard to the EAFRD 
Action taken: NO; Action completed:; Completion date: 
The funds for the 2007-2013 EAFRD were fully utilised by Austria (100% absorption). 

Bulgaria: Action taken: ; Action completed: ; Completion date: 

The information is for information purposes only and no measures are required. 

Cyprus: Action taken: YES; Action completed: YES; Completion date: 31/12/2015 

16 

 
 
As a Member State, we have been paid 95 % of the ESIF budget of the 2007-2013 MFF. The remaining 5 % will be paid 
to us after the closure of the programmes, i.e. after March 2017. 

Czech Republic: Action taken:YES ; Action completed: YES; Completion date: 31 December 2015 

See Comment 1. 

Denmark: Action taken: YES; Action completed: NO ; Completion date: 

As regards ERDF and ESF programmes, more than 95 % of commitments were taken up in 2016, while the remaining 
5 % can be paid by the Commission only after submission of the final clearing of the programmes in March 2017. The 
closing date is thus March 2017. 

Denmark absorbed 99 % of EAFRD funds and 91.5 % of EMFF funds. 

Estonia: Action taken: YES; Action completed: NO; Completion date: 31/03/2017 

The period is open. 

Finland: Action taken: YES; Action completed: NO; Completion date: 

The closure documents for the 2007-2013 programming period will be sent to the Commission in the course of March 
2017. 

France: Action taken: OUI; Action completed: NON; Completion date: Clôture des programmes 2007-2013 

Germany: Action taken: ; Action completed: ; Completion date: 

For information purposes only; no answer required. 

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

Factual finding that does not require action. 

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

Ireland’s absorption rate is currently higher than the EU28 average and is on track to make final drawdown and enter the 
closure process. With regard to the scatter graph which shows total payments and commitments in billion euro, Ireland 
has a comparatively small ESIF commitment, so appears low on the graph. Ireland’s ESF / ERDF rate has increased 8% 
this round. No action is required. 

Latvia: Action taken: YES; Action completed: NO; Completion date: 

In  terms  of  achieving  its  financial  objectives,  Latvia  exceeds  the  average  EU-28  level.  In  order  to  eliminate  the  risks 
associated  with  full  use  of  EU  fund  financing,  taking  into  account  the  options  provided  for  in  the  Commission’s 
guidelines on the closure of operational programmes (C(2015)2771 of 30 April 2015), the time frame was extended for a 

17 

 
 
number of activities, including large projects (more projects were extended following a decision at Government level in 
March 2016). The closure process is taking place during 2016, including the preparation of a final report for submission 
to the Commission, which is due to contain  two  non-functional projects and one project which is split into stages; the 
final declaration of expenditure is also being drawn up, as a result of which it is anticipated that Latvia will be able to 
receive  100 %  EU  fund  financing.  The  results  of  completed  measures  will  be  reflected  in  the  final  declaration  of 
expenditure, which Latvia will submit in accordance with regulatory provisions by 31 March 2017, at which point they 
will be deemed complete. 

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

As regards implementation of the 2007-2013 operational programmes, more than 100 % of planned eligible expenditure 
in respect of operational programmes under the EU Structural Funds (European Regional Development Fund, Cohesion 
Fund,  European  Social  Fund)  had  been  declared  to  the  European  Commission  on  the  basis  of  interim  payment 
applications at the time of completion of the questionnaire. The closure documents (final implementation report for the 
operational  programme,  application  for  payment  of  the  final  balance  and  final  statement  of  expenditure,  closure 
declaration and final control report) are now being prepared for the operational programmes and must be submitted to the 
Commission by 31 March 2017. 

Luxembourg: Action taken: ; Action completed: ; Completion date: 

En ligne avec observation. 

Netherlands: Action taken: ; Action completed: ; Completion date: 

Not applicable. 

Poland: Action taken: ; Action completed: ; Completion date: 

This observation does not include any specific reservations against Poland. 

Portugal: Action taken: ; Action completed: ; Completion date: 

Nothing relevant to report. 

Romania: Action taken: YES- MFE; Action completed:NO; Completion date: 

Note: For the Cohesion Policy funds 

The statement presented on 31 December 2015 regarding the absorption rate of European funds is not the final statement 
regarding the absorption rate for the financial period 2007–2013. 

Although the eligibility period for expenditure made within operational programmes 2007-2013 ended on 31 December 
2015, Romania, as any Member State having received EU grants in the period 2007-2013, may declare to the European 
Commission,  by 31  March  2017,  all  eligible  expenditure  made  by  the  beneficiaries  within  the  projects  financed  under 

18 

 
 
these  programmes.  Thus,  the  final  absorption  rate  may  be  determined  only  after  COM  has  accepted  the  final  closure 
package, to be sent by the Member State by the end of March 2017. 

To increase the absorption rate, the Romanian authorities took measures such as: 

 

identifying  retrospective  projects,  concluding  related  financing  agreements  and  requesting  reimbursement  of 
eligible expenditure made under them; 

  project  phasing:  a  series  of  major  and  non-major  projects  financed  under  the  2007–2013  financial  framework, 
which  were  not  concluded  by  the  end  of  the  eligibility  period,  could  be  staggered  so  that  the  expenditure  for 
phase  I  has  been  declared,  while  the  remaining  works  will  be  financed  from  the  budget  of  2014-2020 
programmes; 

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

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

Spain: Action taken: ; Action completed: ; Completion date: 

EFF 

The  2007-2013  EFF  is  currently  in  the  closure  process.  The  unused  commitments  were  due  to  the  economic  crisis  in 
Spain. 

Sweden: Action taken: NO; Action completed: ; Completion date: 

This observation does not require Sweden to take action. 

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

None. 

Figure 2.6 – 
footnote 1 

Figure 2.7 

(1) Croatia acceded to the EU in 
July  2013.  Absorption  figures 
for  Croatia  are  therefore  not 
comparable  to  those  of  other 
Member States. 

Unused  commitments  of  ESI 
funds at 31 December 2015 as a 
percentage  of  2015  general 
government expenditure. 

Austria: 
With regard to the ESF 
Action taken: YES; Action completed: NO; Completion date: With regard to the ESF - 31 March 2017 
With regard to the ESF and the final application for payment. 

With regard to the ERDF 

19 

 
 
 
Action taken: NO; Action completed:; Completion date: 
The ERDF programmes for 2014-2020 are at the early stages. The managing authorities have not yet submitted all of the 
Descriptions of the Management and Control Systems for designation. Designation is a pre-requisite for submitting 
applications for payment. In general, the detailed requirements of the European Commission (guidelines, etc.) have a 
major impact on the complexity of the systems. 

With regard to the EAFRD 
Action taken: NO; Action completed:; Completion date:  
The funds for the 2007-2013 EAFRD were fully utilised by Austria (100% absorption). 

Bulgaria: Action taken: ; Action completed: ; Completion date: 

The information is for information purposes only and no measures are required. 

Czech Republic: Action taken: YES; Action completed: YES; Completion date: 31 December 2015 

See Comment 1. 

Denmark: Action taken:YES; Action completed: NO; Completion date: 

Following  the  designation  of  the  managing  and  certifying  authorities  for  the  2014-20  ERDF  and  ESF  programmes  in 
December 2015, regular payment claims are now sent with a view to using the commitments, which are made available 
on an ongoing basis. 

As regards the EAFRD, disbursement was somewhat lower in the first 2½ years of the current budget period than in the 
same period  of the previous year. It is  now expected that the 2014 tranche will  be disbursed in 2016. The EMFF  was 
rather slow off the mark because the legislation was delayed, but participation in the programme’s actions is generally 
high. 

Finland: Action taken: NO; Action completed: NO; Completion date:- 

The closure documents for the 2007-2013 programming period will be sent to the Commission in March 2017. 

France: Action taken: OUI; Action completed: NON; Completion date: Clôture des programmes 

Selon  le  tableau  ci-dessus,  la  part  des  engagements  FESI  inutilisés  est  minime,  inférieure  à  2%.  Ceci  correspond  très 
probablement aux reliquats d’opérations réalisées à un cout légèrement inférieur au montant prévisionnel. 

Germany: Action taken: ; Action completed: ; Completion date: 

For information purposes only; no answer required. 

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

Factual finding that does not require action. 

20 

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

Ireland has a comparatively small ESIF commitment, where ESIF support as a whole makes a small portion of Ireland’s 
government  expenditure,  so  outstanding  commitments  make  up  a  very  small  proportion  of  government  expenditure. 
Ireland has used most of the funds allocated for the 2007-2013 period and is on track to use all funds for the 2014-2020 
period. 

Latvia: Action taken: YES; Action completed: NO; Completion date: 

In  terms  of  achieving  its  financial  objectives  Latvia  exceeds  the  average  EU-28  level.  In  order  to  eliminate  the  risks 
associated  with  full  use  of  EU  fund  financing,  taking  into  account  the  options  provided  for  in  the  Commission’s 
guidelines on the closure of operational programmes (C(2015)2771 of 30 April 2015), the time frame was extended for a 
number of activities, including large projects (more projects were extended following a decision at Government level in 
March 2016). The closure process is taking place during 2016, including the preparation of a final report for submission 
to the Commission, which is due to contain  two  non-functional projects and one project which is split into stages; the 
final declaration of expenditure is also being drawn up, as a result of which it is anticipated that Latvia will be able to 
receive  100 %  EU  fund  financing.  The  results  of  completed  measures  will  be  reflected  in  the  final  declaration  of 
expenditure, which Latvia will submit in accordance with regulatory provisions by 31 March 2017, at which point they 
will be deemed complete. 

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

Undrawn ESI Fund commitments in respect of the 2007-2013 financing period made up a significant portion of general 
government expenditure at the end of 2015, as the ESI Fund resources allocated to Lithuania make up a relatively large 
share of total government expenditure in comparison with other EU Member States. However, at the time of completion 
of this questionnaire, more than 100 % of planned eligible expenditure in respect of operational programmes under the 
EU Structural Funds (European Regional Development Fund, Cohesion Fund, European Social Fund) had been declared 
to the European Commission on the basis of interim payment applications.  

No Structural Fund commitments for 2014-2020 had been drawn by the end of 2015, as Lithuania had not yet finished 
auditing  the  management  and  control  system  authorities’  compliance  with  the  criteria  for  their  designation. 
Consequently, no expenditure incurred during project implementation had been declared to the European Commission. 
The speed of the process of designating management and control system authorities was affected by the rather complex 
and increasingly burdensome procedures and the ill-timed adoption of EU legislation and/or documents with an impact 
on  the  management  and  control  system.  Although  the  audit  of  the  compliance  of  the  management  and  control  system 
authorities with the criteria for their designation had not yet been completed in 2015, this did not have a negative effect 
on  the  implementation  of  the  operational  programme,  as  projects  were  selected  and  implemented  in  accordance  with 
procedures  laid  down  in  national  legislation,  and  projects  were  implemented  using  advances  from  the  European 
Commission  and  funds  from  the  State  Treasury.  The  audit  of  the  compliance  of  the  management  and  control  system 
authorities with the criteria for their designation has now been completed, and Lithuania has already submitted a payment 

21 

 
 
application to the Commission, on the basis of which it has received an interim payment. 

Luxembourg: Action taken: ; Action completed: ; Completion date: 

En ligne avec observation. 

Netherlands: Action taken: ; Action completed: ; Completion date: 

Not applicable. 

Poland: Action taken: ; Action completed: ; Completion date: 

This observation does not include any specific reservations against Poland. 

Portugal: Action taken: ; Action completed: ; Completion date: 

Nothing relevant to report. 

Slovakia: Action taken: YES; Action completed: YES; Completion date: end of December 2015 

Action  to  draw  on  EU  resources  under  the  2007-2013  programming  period  was  taken  in  collaboration  with  the  Task 
Force set up by the Commission in 2014. The results of the action were periodically monitored at joint meetings between 
Slovakia and the Commission. In 2015, the last meeting was held in late December. At the same time, tasks laid down by 
Government Resolution 56/2014 required managing authorities exposed to risk to submit action plans in order to speed 
up the uptake and implementation of operational programmes on a two-monthly basis. When the eligibility of the 2007-
2013 period ended, the task force’s activities came to a halt and the obligation to submit uptake action plans lapsed. 

Spain: Action taken: ; Action completed: ; Completion date: 

EFF  

The  2007-2013  EFF  is  currently  in  the  closure  process.  The  unused  commitments  were  due  to  the  economic  crisis  in 
Spain. 

Sweden: Action taken: NO; Action completed: ; Completion date: 

This observation does not require Sweden to take action. 

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

None. 

Austria: 

With regard to the ESF 
Action taken: YES; Action completed: NO; Completion date: With regard to the ESF - 31 March 2017 

22 

Figure 2.8 

2007-2013  ESI  Funds  unused 
commitments  and  2014-2020 
pre-financing at the end of 2015. 

 
 
With regard to the ESF and the final application for payment. 

With regard to the EAFRD 
Action taken: NO; Action completed:; Completion date:  
The funds for the 2007-2013 EAFRD were fully utilised by Austria (100% absorption). 

Bulgaria: Action taken: ; Action completed: ; Completion date: 

The information is for information purposes only and no measures are required. 

Czech Republic: Action taken:YES; Action completed: YES; Completion date: 31 December 2015 

See Comment 1. 

Denmark: Action taken: YES; Action completed: NO; Completion date: 

As regards ERDF and ESF programmes, more than 95 % of commitments were taken up in 2016, while the remaining 
5 % can be paid by the Commission only after submission of the final clearing of the programmes in March 2017.  

Following  the  designation  of  the  managing  and  certifying  authorities  for  the  2014-20  ERDF  and  ESF  programmes  in 
December 2015, regular payment claims are now sent with a view to using the pre-financing and commitments, which 
are made available on an ongoing basis. 

As regards the EAFRD, disbursement was somewhat lower in the first 2½ years of the current budget period than in the 
same period  of the previous year. It is  now expected that the 2014 tranche will  be disbursed in 2016. The EMFF  was 
rather slow off the mark because the legislation was delayed, but participation in the programme’s actions is generally 
high. 

Finland: Action taken: NO; Action completed: NO; Completion date: 

The  closure  documents  for  the  2007-2013  programming  period  will  be  sent  to  the  Commission  in  March  2017.  The 
request for payment for the 2014-2020 programming period will be sent after the designation. 

taken:  OUI;  Action 

France:  Action 
completed:  NON;  Completion  date:  Clôture  des  programmes 
Les  préfinancements  versés  par  la  Commission  européenne,  qu’il  soit  initiaux  ou  annuels,  ont  permis  d’effectuer  les 
premiers  versements  aux  bénéficiaires  de  projets  européens  soutenus.  Le  versement  de  ces  préfinancements  ont  été 
indispensables  au  lancement  de  la  programmation  et  de  la  bonne  réalisation  des  premiers  projets  dans  l’attente  des 
désignations effectives et donc des appels de fonds. 

Germany: Action taken: ; Action completed: ; Completion date: 

For information purposes only; no answer required. 

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

23 

 
 
Factual finding that does not require action. 

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

Ireland has a comparatively small ESIF commitment, where ESIF support as a whole makes a small portion of Ireland’s 
government  expenditure,  so  outstanding  commitments  make  up  a  very  small  proportion  of  government  expenditure. 
Ireland  has  used  most  of  the  funds  allocated  for  the  2007-2013  period.  In  terms  of  drawing  down  our  outstanding 
commitments, Ireland does not foresee any issues impacting ESI Fund programmes for the 2014-2020 period. 

Latvia: Action taken: YES; Action completed: NO; Completion date: 

In  terms  of  achieving  its  financial  objectives  Latvia  exceeds  the  average  EU-28  level.  In  order  to  eliminate  the  risks 
associated  with  full  use  of  EU  fund  financing,  taking  into  account  the  options  provided  for  in  the  Commission’s 
guidelines on the closure of operational programmes (C(2015)2771 of 30 April 2015), the time frame was extended for a 
number of activities, including large projects (more projects were extended following a decision at Government level in 
March 2016). The closure process is taking place during 2016, including the preparation of a final report for submission 
to the Commission, which is due to contain  two  non-functional projects and one project which is split into stages; the 
final declaration of expenditure is also being drawn up, as a result of which it is anticipated that Latvia will be able to 
receive  100 %  EU  fund  financing.  The  results  of  completed  measures  will  be  reflected  in  the  final  declaration  of 
expenditure, which Latvia will submit in accordance with regulatory provisions by 31 March 2017, at which point they 
will be deemed complete. 

2)  With  regard  to  the  2014–2020  planning  period,  the  slower  rate  of  progress  is  linked  to  delays  in  complying  with  a 
number of preconditions for launching specific aid objectives (SAOs), and also in drawing up implementation conditions 
for SAOs under certain competent authorities for the purpose of starting the selection of project applications. The delays 
in  drawing  up  implementation  conditions  relate  to  the  lengthy  coordination  procedure  for  these  conditions  among  the 
stakeholders,  in  particular  social  partners,  and  in  some  cases  in  connection  with  the  need  to  coordinate  specific  issues 
with the European Commission (e.g. State aid conditions). 

To  speed  up  the  flow  of  investments  into  the  economy  during  the  2014-2020  programming  period  for  EU  funds,  the 
decision-making process, and the coordination of documentation necessary for the introduction of specific aid objectives 
(SAOs), during the reference period the managing authority undertook a series of measures, including extensive use of 
EU  fund  Monitoring  Committee  and  sub-Committee  forums.  In  the  next  reference  period  the  managing  authority  will 
carefully monitor any further deviations from the SAO schedule and will do everything it can both on a strategic level 
and in terms of implementation to speed up the progress of investments with regard to the aforementioned priority axes. 

Lithuania: Action taken: ; Action completed: ; Completion date: 

Lithuania’s outstanding commitments in respect of 2007-2013 are among the lowest of the EU Member States, because, 
at the time of completion of this questionnaire, more than 100 % of planned eligible expenditure in respect of operational 
programmes  under  the  EU  Structural  Funds  (European  Regional  Development  Fund,  Cohesion  Fund,  European  Social 

24 

 
 
Fund) had been declared to the European Commission on the basis of interim payment applications.  

No Structural Fund commitments for 2014-2020 had been drawn by the end of 2015, as Lithuania had not yet finished 
auditing  the  management  and  control  system  authorities’  compliance  with  the  criteria  for  their  designation. 
Consequently, no expenditure incurred during project implementation had been declared to the European Commission. 
The speed of the process of designating management and control system authorities was affected by the rather complex 
and increasingly burdensome procedures and the ill-timed adoption of EU legislation and/or documents with an impact 
on  the  management  and  control  system.  Although  the  audit  of  the  compliance  of  the  management  and  control  system 
authorities with the criteria for their designation had not yet been completed in 2015, this did not have a negative effect 
on  the  implementation  of  the  operational  programme,  as  projects  were  selected  and  implemented  in  accordance  with 
procedures  laid  down  in  national  legislation,  and  projects  were  implemented  using  advances  from  the  European 
Commission  and  funds  from  the  State  Treasury.  The  audit  of  the  compliance  of  the  management  and  control  system 
authorities with the criteria for their designation has now been completed, and Lithuania has already submitted payment 
applications to the Commission, on the basis of which it has received interim payments. 

Luxembourg: Action taken: ; Action completed: ; Completion date: 

En ligne avec observation. 

Netherlands: Action taken: ; Action completed: ; Completion date: 

Not applicable. 

Poland: Action taken: ; Action completed: ; Completion date: 

This observation does not include any specific reservations against Poland. 

Portugal: Action taken: ; Action completed: ; Completion date: 

Nothing relevant to report. 

Romania: Action taken: YES- MFE; Action completed: NO; Completion date:  

MFE Note: For the Cohesion Policy funds 

The  statement  presented  on  31  December  2015  regarding  the  unused  commitments  of  European  funds  is  an  interim 
statement for the financial period 2007–2013, given that, in 2016, COM made payments of over EUR 3.5 billion (under 
Sectoral  Operational  Programme  Increase  of  Economic  Competitiveness,  Operational  Programme  on  Technical 
Assistance,  Sectoral  Operational  Programme  Environment,  Regional  Operational  Programme,  Sectoral  Operational 
Programme  Human  Resources  Development,  Sectoral  Operational  Programme  Transport,  Sectoral  Operational 
Programme for Administrative Capacity Development). 

Moreover,  Romania,  as  any  Member  State  having  received  EU  grants  in  the  period  2007-2013,  may  declare  to  the 

25 

 
 
European Commission, by 31 March 2017, expenditure made by beneficiaries within the projects financed under these 
programmes, while COM may reimburse amounts after the final balance has been established. 

Slovakia: Action taken: YES; Action completed: YES; Completion date: end of December 2015 

Action  to  draw  on  EU  resources  under  the  2007-2013  programming  period  was  taken  in  collaboration  with  the  Task 
Force set up by the Commission in 2014. The results of the action were periodically monitored at joint meetings between 
Slovakia and the Commission. In 2015, the last meeting was held in late December. At the same time, tasks laid down by 
Government Resolution 56/2014 required managing authorities exposed to risk to submit action plans in order to speed 
up the uptake and implementation of operational programmes on a two-monthly basis. When the eligibility of the 2007-
2013 period ended, the task force’s activities came to a halt and the obligation to submit uptake action plans lapsed. 

Spain: Action taken: YES; Action completed: ; Completion date: 

ESF 

With regard to the ESF, there were no payment claims in the period 2014-2020 due to the long process of designating the 
managing  and  certifying  authorities  and  intermediate  bodies,  as  was  the  case  in  most  Member  States.  For  this  reason 
there  was  no  consumption  through  payment  claims  for  2014-2020  pre-financing  received  from  the  European 
Commission.  However,  the  pre-financing  received  served  to  make  progress  with  the  actions  on  the  ground  in  all  the 
operational programmes, although it has not yet been possible to include them in payment claims. 

EFF  

The  2007-2013  EFF  is  currently  in  the  closure  process.  The  unused  commitments  were  due  to  the  economic  crisis  in 
Spain.  With  regard  to  the  initial  2014-2015  pre-financing  for  the  EMFF,  it  was  transferred  to  the  Commission  on  25 
November 2015, once the Operational Programme had been approved by Commission Decision of 13 November 2015. 

Sweden: Action taken: NO; Action completed: ; Completion date: 

This observation does not require Sweden to take action. 

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

None. 

Paragraph 
2.31 

According to the latest available 
report  on  financial  instruments 
under 
shared  management, 
describing the situation as at the 
end  of  2014  (36),  6,8  billion 
euro  of  unutilised  amounts 
remained  in  these  instruments. 

26 

 
 
 
Of  this  80  %  was  concentrated 
in five Member States (37). Italy 
(3 billion euro) constituted 45 % 
of  the  total  (38).  During  our 
examination of the balance sheet 
we  asked  the  Commission  to 
provide  additional  analysis  on 
the  use  of  these  instruments  in 
Italy  up  to  31  December  2015. 
This  shows  that  1,7  billion  euro 
31 
unutilised 
remained 
December 2015 for Italy. 

at 

(38)  Spain  0,9  billion  euro  (13 
%),  Greece  0,9  billion  euro  (13 
%),  United  Kingdom  0,5  billion 
euro (7 %), Germany 0,3 billion 
euro  (4  %)  and  other  Member 
States  1,2  billion  euro  (18  %) 
made up the remainder. 

Paragraph 
2.31 – 
footnote 38 

Germany: Action taken: ; Action completed: ; Completion date: 

For information purposes only; no answer required. 

Greece: Action taken: YES; Action completed: NO; Completion date: 31/12/2016 

Ministry of the Economy and Development: In addition to the fact that a Commission decision granted an extension 
until 31 December 2016 for completion, specifically for the 2007-2013 period financial instruments, and that this was for 
all  EU  Member  States,  not  just  Greece,  in  order  to  prevent  the  loss  of  resources  which  had  been  made  available  in 
financial engineering measures and programmes, and taking into account their stage of completion, as well as the forecast 
for  the  resources  which  they  will  ultimately  absorb  within  the  framework  of  the  2007-2013  NSRF,  all  administrative 
procedures were activated which were designed to achieve the timely release of resources which had not been expected 
to be absorbed. The departments continue to monitor the progress of the financial instruments on a monthly basis, until 
their  completion,  and  they  are  collaborating  closely  and  constantly  with  the  managers  of  the  funds,  so  that  there  is  a 
possibility of immediate corrective intervention in the event that there is a possibility of deviation from the objectives. 
Following  the  release  of  these  resources  the  completion  percentage  rose  to  approximately  84 %,  at  the  end  of  August 
2016. 

Spain: Action taken: ; Action completed: ; Completion date: 

ERDF  

In the case of Spain, the ICO (Instituto de Crédito Oficial) manages a Financial Instrument called ICO Innovación-Fondo 
Tecnológico, with a total of €314 million and an amount of €1.4 million granted to final beneficiaries at 31 December 
2015,  i.e.  0.45 %.  This  low  implementation  in  this  Instrument  weighed  down  the  overall  implementation  of  all  the 
Financial Instruments in all the Operational Programmes, giving rise to a low percentage (37 %).  

It  must  be  borne  in  mind  that  if  this  Instrument  is  left  out  of  consideration,  the  average  implementation  of  the  recent 

27 

 
 
COM reply 
to paragraph 
2.31 

information 

requested 
The  Commission 
additional 
from 
Italy by 31 December 2015. This 
information shows that 45 % for 
Italy  remained  unutilised  as  at 
31  December  2015.  The  data 
obtained,  checked  against  the 
bookings  made 
the  2015 
have 
Commission 
been  transmitted  to  the  Court. 
Following 
it 
appeared that there is no need to 
change the current methodology. 
However,  implementation  will 
be 
the  2016 
exercise. 

in 
accounts, 

reassessed 

analysis, 

the 

for 

Financial Instruments improves significantly (47.93 % compared with an average of 75 % in the EU as a whole).  

ESF 

As regards the ESF, Spain plans to use financial instruments in two operational programmes in the 2014-2020 MFF. In 
2015 and 2016 managers and technical staff from the managing and certifying authorities participated in various events 
organised by the European Commission to improve their training in these instruments. 

United Kingdom: Action taken: n/a; Action completed: n/a; Completion date:; Any other comment: None 

28 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
CHAPTER 3 – Getting results from the EU budget 

Paragraphs 

Observations in the 2015 
Court's Annual Report 

Member States' replies 

Paragraph 
3.23 

Figure 3.3 

Bulgaria:  Action taken: YES; Action completed: NO MESs;Completion date: 

Portugal: Action taken: ; Action completed: ; Completion date: 

Nothing relevant to report.  

the 
‘synergies 

The  Horizon  2020  legislation 
importance  of 
recognises 
and 
building 
between 
complementarities 
national  and  European  research 
and 
innovation 
programmes’(20).  Figure  3.3 
below  includes  key  messages 
from  our  cooperation  (21)  with 
the  Supreme  Audit  Institutions 
(SAIs) of Bulgaria and Portugal: 
while  there  are  some  areas  in 
which  national  and  EU  research 
programmes are complementary, 
our  partners  also  found  some 
problems at the national level. 

national 

Examples  of  complementarities 
programmes 
with 
identified 
including 
weaknesses at national level. 

some 

Bulgaria: Action taken: YES; Action completed: NO; Completion date: 

MESc:  In  order  to  increase  the  level  and  market  orientation  of  research  activities  carried  out  by  leading  scientific 
organisations  in  Bulgaria  and  to  overcome  the  deficiency  of  competitive  and  internationally  recognised  research 
complexes qualifying for modern infrastructure and high level of scientific studies in areas of interest to the Bulgarian 
economy,  Operational  Programme  ‘Science  and  Education  for  Smart  Growth’  2014-2020  (SESG)  launched  two 
operations  for  construction  and/or  modernisation  and  development  of  Centres  of  Excellence  (CoE)  and  Centres  of 
Competence  (CoC). These centres will  create the best possible conditions for attracting highly qualified  researchers to 
conduct  top  level  research  at  European  scale  in  the  priority  areas  of  the  Innovation  Strategy  for  Smart  Specialisation 
(ISIS) and will significantly improve the potential for applied research, experimental development and innovations. 

Proposed interventions will support construction, upgrading and operation of research centres at the highest level, where 
research,  technological  development  and  innovation  are  fully  integrated  in  accordance  with  the  best  international 
standards and practices. The centres respond to the need to develop modern research facilities, which are orientated at 

29 

 
 
 
areas  with  the  greatest  potential  to  increase  the  competitiveness  of  the  Bulgarian  economy.  The  development  of  the 
research and innovation capacity will create opportunities for new partnerships with the business and for developing new 
enterprises. Programmes for the development of Centres will be evaluated with a special focus on the proposed plans for 
original research at high level in the priority areas of ISIS. 

Complementarity with Operational Programme ‘Innovation and Entrepreneurship’ (OP IE): 

Support  under  OP  SESG  is  aimed  at  the  development  of  the  infrastructure  and  human  resources  required  to  conduct 
applied research in the thematic areas of the Innovation Strategy for Smart Specialisation (ISIS). Research leading to the 
creation  and  dissemination  of  publicly  available  knowledge  in  the  areas  of  ISIS  will  be  carried  out  in  the  newly 
developed  and  modernised  research  infrastructure.  This  in  turn  will  serve  as  an  incentive  and  scientific  basis  for 
innovation  activities  of  businesses.  OP  IE  in  turn  will  intervene  to  support  the  conducting  of  applied  research  and 
innovation  aimed  at  developing  or  improvement  of  specific  products  and  services  in  enterprises  and  their 
commercialisation using the developed capacity and research results. 

Complementarity with Horizon 2020 

OP  SESG  will  provide  support  for  building  the  research  capacity  of  research  organisations  and  higher  education 
institutions  through  modernisation  of  their  equipment  and  creating  attractive  conditions  for  researchers.  A  wider 
participation in Horizon 2020 can be expected as a result. Modernising the research environment will result in attracting 
world-class scientists who can attract additional grants from Horizon 2020. 

The measures under OP SESG will support the participation of Bulgarian researchers in Horizon 2020, including in JPIs, 
ERA-NETs, the activities under the Widening Programme.  

At the level of programming for OP SESG, demarcation should be done in terms of the development of partner facilities 
and research centres, etc., as such facilities will be financed under the Operational Programme only at national level. 

Another opportunity for promoting complementarity between funds is the use of complementary or upgrading funding 
for projects that have already received funding under Horizon 2020. 

Portugal: Action taken: ; Action completed: ; Completion date: 

Nothing relevant to report.  

Bulgaria: Action taken: YES; Action completed: NO; Completion date: 

MESc:  In  order  to  increase  the  level  and  market  orientation  of  research  activities  carried  out  by  leading  scientific 
organisations  in  Bulgaria  and  to  overcome  the  deficiency  of  competitive  and  internationally  recognised  research 

30 

COM reply 
to figure 3.3 

Commission 

supports 
The 
Bulgaria  actively  both  via  the 
‘Stairway  to  Excellence’  pilot 
(see above) and the new ‘lagging 

 
 
 
 
to 

its 

via 

the 

regions’ initiative (1) in order to 
innovation  eco-
improve 
in 
system  and  participation 
Horizon 
the 
2020 
implementation and evolution of 
the 
smart 
Bulgarian 
strategy.  The 
specialisation 
European Commission presented 
in  October  2015  key  policy 
recommendations 
help 
research  and 
modernise 
innovation  sectors  in  Bulgaria. 
This  was  the  first  time  that  an 
EU  Member 
State  made 
voluntary  use  of  the  Horizon 
2020  Policy  Support  Facility 
(PSF),  a  new  instrument  that 
gives 
practical 
support  to  identify,  implement 
and  evaluate 
reforms 
needed to enhance the quality of 
their 
and 
public 
innovation structures. 

governments 

research 

those 

complexes qualifying for modern infrastructure and high level of scientific studies in areas of interest to the Bulgarian 
economy,  Operational  Programme  ‘Science  and  Education  for  Smart  Growth’ 2014—2020  (SESG)  launched  two 
operations  for  construction  and/or  modernisation  and  development  of  Centres  of  Excellence  (CoE)  and  Centres  of 
Competence  (CoC). These centres will  create the best possible conditions for attracting highly qualified  researchers to 
conduct  top  level  research  at  European  scale  in  the  priority  areas  of  the  Innovation  Strategy  for  Smart  Specialisation 
(ISIS) and will significantly improve the potential for applied research, experimental development and innovations. 

Proposed interventions will support construction, upgrading and operation of research centres at the highest level, where 
research,  technological  development  and  innovation  are  fully  integrated  in  accordance  with  the  best  international 
standards and practices. The centres respond to the need to develop modern research facilities, which are orientated at 
areas  with  the  greatest  potential  to  increase  the  competitiveness  of  the  Bulgarian  economy.  The  development  of  the 
research and innovation capacity will create opportunities for new partnerships with the business and for developing new 
enterprises. Programmes for the development of Centres will be evaluated with a special focus on the proposed plans for 
original research at high level in the priority areas of ISIS. 

Complementarity with Operational Programme ‘Innovation and Entrepreneurship’ (OP IE): 

Support  under  OP  SESG  is  aimed  at  the  development  of  the  infrastructure  and  human  resources  required  to  conduct 
applied research in the thematic areas of the Innovation Strategy for Smart Specialisation (ISIS). Research leading to the 
creation  and  dissemination  of  publicly  available  knowledge  in  the  areas  of  ISIS  will  be  carried  out  in  the  newly 
developed  and  modernised  research  infrastructure.  This  in  turn  will  serve  as  an  incentive  and  scientific  basis  for 
innovation  activities  of  businesses.  OP  IE  in  turn  will  intervene  to  support  the  conducting  of  applied  research  and 
innovation  aimed  at  developing  or  improvement  of  specific  products  and  services  in  enterprises  and  their 
commercialisation using the developed capacity and research results. 

Complementarity with Horizon 2020 

OP  SESG  will  provide  support  for  building  the  research  capacity  of  research  organisations  and  higher  education 
institutions  through  modernisation  of  their  equipment  and  creating  attractive  conditions  for  researchers.  A  wider 
participation in Horizon 2020 can be expected as a result. Modernising the research environment will result in attracting 
world-class scientists who can attract additional grants from Horizon 2020. 

The measures under OP SESG will support the participation of Bulgarian researchers in Horizon 2020, including in JPIs, 
ERA-NETs, the activities under the Widening Programme.  

At the level of programming for OP SESG, demarcation should be done in terms of the development of partner facilities 
and research centres, etc., as such facilities will be financed under the Operational Programme only at national level. 

Another opportunity  for promoting  complementarity between funds is the use of complementary or upgrading funding 
for projects that have already received funding under Horizon 2020. 

31 

 
 
Paragraph 
3.69 

by 

unnoticed 

In  2015,  we  published  three 
special  reports  in  this  area.  Our 
report  on  financial  assistance  to 
countries  in  difficulties  was  a 
comprehensive  analysis  of  the 
Commission’s  management  of 
the financial assistance provided 
to five Member States: Hungary, 
Latvia,  Romania,  Ireland  and 
Portugal  (56).  Our  conclusions 
were  wide-ranging,  drawing 
attention  to  the  fact  that,  before 
the  crisis,  some  warning  signs 
the 
went 
Commission, with the result that 
it  found  itself  unprepared  when 
requests  for  financial  assistance 
The 
started 
Commission’s  performance 
in 
then mobilising resources to deal 
with 
the  crisis  was  mixed, 
although  the  Commission  was 
generally  successful  in  issuing 
debt on behalf of the EU to meet 
financing  needs.  The  impact  of 
the  Commission’s  action  was 
that  the  Member  States  mostly 
targets  and 
met 
generally  continued  with 
the 
reforms  that  had  been  sparked 
by  the  programme  conditions. 
We 
nine 
made 
recommendations,  covering  all 
aspects of this issue. 

their  deficit 

arrive. 

to 

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

In  the  document  referred  to  (special  report  No 18/2015:  “Financial  assistance  provided  to  countries  in difficulties” 
(http://eca.europa.eu)) the European Court of Auditors examined the success and soundness of the assistance provided by 
the  European  Commission  for  crisis  management  and  drew  up  recommendations  for  the  Commission.  The  actions 
regarding the measures thus had to be implemented not by the five Member States involved , but by the Commission. 
Hungary did not draw down the entire BoP (Balance of Payments assistance) amount since market financing could be 
provided before the end of the programming period. In several areas, the Government formed in 2010 did away with the 
economic  policy  programme  behind  the  BoP.  However,  within  the  framework  of  the  changed  economic  policy  target 
system  and  its  instruments,  the  new  Government  built  upon  its  structural  reforms  (Széll  Kálmán  Plan)  to  successfully 
decrease the external vulnerability of Hungary’s economy, reversed the trend of increasing debt, and from 2012 achieved 
a permanent deficit rate of less than 3 % of GDP. 

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

An additional €3.6 million was received for structural funds for Ireland for the 2017-2020 period.  Ireland will continue 
to work with the Commission in order to improve communications.  

Latvia: Action taken:YES; Action completed: YES; Completion date: End of 2012 

The global financial and economic crisis also had a negative impact on the economic and budgetary situation in Latvia, 
resulting in a significant decrease in budgetary revenue, and reserves accumulated over previous years were not sufficient 
to cover expenditure. The financial and economic crisis proved that Latvia’s pre-crisis budgetary policy – living beyond 
one’s means – was not sustainable. During the period of rapid economic growth, there was a significant increase in tax 
revenue in the state budget, but this growth was closely linked to the growth in economic activity, and tax revenue was 
growing  beyond  the  normal  tax  elasticities.  The  responsible  course  of  action  therefore  would  have  been  to  keep  this 
surplus revenue as a reserve for harder times, rather than spend it on the budget. However, this was not done. 

As  a  result,  Latvia  had  to  ask  for  assistance  from  international  bodies  and  substantially  reform  the  budgetary  policy 
employed  hitherto.  Given  the  European  Commission’s  limited  experience  in  resolving  these  kinds  of  crises,  certain 
methods and measures were perhaps not always best suited to Latvia’s specific situation. However, it is important to note 
that,  although  the  impact  of  the  financial  crisis  affected  the  economies  of  the  European  Union’s  Member  States  in 
different ways, depending on the economic imbalances that existed in the pre-crisis period, a certain set of fiscal policy 
corrective  measures  and  structural  reforms  could  be  applied  horizontally  to  Member  States  affected  by  the  crisis.  The 
financial and economic crisis had a profound impact on the Latvian economy, so effective action had to be taken, which 
wasn’t perhaps very popular, but which was absolutely essential for overcoming the crisis and its effects. The extent of 
structural  reforms  applied  during  the  period  of  the  assistance  programme  was  necessary  for  the  future  growth  of  the 
economy and for ensuring sustainable public finances. Therefore, in conclusion, despite the possible shortcomings of the 

32 

 
 
Paragraph 
3.70 

assistance  programme,  its  objective  was  achieved  –  economic  growth  was  renewed  and  the  budgetary  policy  model 
became more responsible and sustainable.  

Portugal: Action taken: ; Action completed: ; Completion date: 

Nothing relevant to report.  

Greece:  Action taken: YES; Action completed: NO; Completion date: 31/12/2016 

Ministry of the Economy and Development: There was a proposal from the TFGR for a guarantees scheme for shared 
risk  loans, there were consultations with the relevant  sections of the Commission  and the department, the scheme was 
discussed within the technical working group but was not put into practice, and it is therefore not possible to evaluate its 
usefulness when implemented. 

Combination programmes were drafted but there were difficulties in putting them into practice, due, among other things, 
to: 

 

 

 

delay in the issue of clear instructions by DG REGIO  

difficulty  in  implementing  the  rules  of DG  COMP  in  the  real  economy  and  on  the  real  market  (e.g.  directives  for 
addressing  the  pre-condition  of  at  least  25 %  private  participation  in  the  implementation  of  the  regional  support 
rules) 

In order to improve procedures, a joint information platform was created for XE users and the use of the State aid 
information system was made compulsory for the 2014-2020 Χ.Ε. too. 

 

restrictions by the ERDF in relation to, for example: 

 

 

the prohibition on the geographical redeployment of resources,  

refinancing of existing loans – Documentation which was made public 

report 
the 

set  up  by 
to  deliver 

Greece  was  one  of  the  Member 
States  most  associated  with  the 
financial  crisis.  We  therefore 
published  a 
focusing 
support 
specifically  on 
provided  by  the  Commission  to 
help Greece implement financial 
reform  (57).  We  concluded  that 
the 
the  body 
Commission 
its 
support,  the  ‘Task  Force  for 
Greece’, 
its 
mandate  overall  in  delivering 
the 
assistance 
the  Greek 
requirements  of 
economic 
adjustment 
there 
programmes.  However, 
were  shortcomings  and  mixed 
results  in  terms  of  its  influence 
on the progress of reforms. 

line  with 

achieved 

had 

in 

Paragraph 
3.70 – 
footnote 57 

(57)  Special  report  No  19/2015, 
‘More attention to results needed 
to 
the  delivery  of 
technical  assistance  to  Greece’ 
(http://eca.europa.eu). 

improve 

Greece:  Action taken: YES; Action completed: NO; Completion date: 31/12/2016 

Ministry of the Economy and Development: There was a proposal from the TFGR for a guarantees scheme for shared 
risk  loans, there were consultations with the relevant sections of the Commission  and the department, the scheme was 
discussed within the technical working group but was not put into practice, and it is therefore not possible to evaluate its 
usefulness when implemented. 

Combination programmes were drafted but there were difficulties in putting them into practice, due, among other things, 
to: 

 

delay in the issue of clear instructions by DG REGIO  

33 

 
 
 

 

difficulty  in  implementing  the  rules  of DG  COMP  in  the  real  economy  and  on  the  real  market  (e.g.  directives  for 
addressing  the  pre-condition  of  at  least  25 %  private  participation  in  the  implementation  of  the  regional  support 
rules) 

In order to improve procedures, a joint information platform was created for XE users and the use of the State aid 
information system was made compulsory for the 2014-2020 Χ.Ε. too. 

 

restrictions by the ERDF in relation to, for example: 

 

the prohibition on the geographical redeployment of resources,  

refinancing of existing loans – Documentation which was made public 

Greece:  Action taken: YES; Action completed: NO; Completion date: 31/12/2016 

Ministry of the Economy and Development: There was a proposal from the TFGR for a guarantees scheme for shared 
risk  loans, there were consultations with the relevant sections of the Commission  and the department, the scheme was 
discussed within the technical working group but was not put into practice, and it is therefore not possible to evaluate its 
usefulness when implemented. 

Combination programmes were drafted but there were difficulties in putting them into practice, due, among other things, 
to: 

 

 

 

delay in the issue of clear instructions by DG REGIO  

difficulty  in  implementing  the  rules  of DG  COMP  in  the  real  economy  and  on  the  real  market  (e.g.  directives  for 
addressing  the  pre-condition  of  at  least  25 %  private  participation  in  the  implementation  of  the  regional  support 
rules) 

In order to improve procedures, a joint information platform was created for XE users and the use of the State aid 
information system was made compulsory for the 2014-2020 Χ.Ε. too. 

 

restrictions by the ERDF in relation to, for example: 

 

the prohibition on the geographical redeployment of resources,  

refinancing of existing loans – Documentation which was made public 

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

In relation to youth unemployment, allocations have been provided by the Commission, however, drawdown is yet to 
take place. 

34 

COM reply 
to paragraph 
3.70 

Paragraph 
3.73 – 
footnote 61 

on 

competences 

The  Commission  acknowledges 
technical 
impact  of 
that 
the 
assistance 
overall 
the 
progress  of  reforms  was  mixed. 
This  needs  to  be  seen  in  the 
broader  political  context  and 
taking  into  account  the  division 
between 
of 
and 
Member 
the 
States 
Institutions. 
European  Union 
The 
the 
implementation  of 
(structural)  reforms  was  and 
remains the responsibility of the 
Greek  authorities,  whereas  the 
‘Task  Force  for  Greece’  was 
the 
available 
Greek 
where 
requested. 

to  advise/assist 
authorities 

later 

in  2015  on 

We  returned  to  this  issue  in  our 
the 
report 
Commission’s support for youth 
action  teams  (60),  an  initiative 
which  brought  national  and 

 
 
Commission  experts  together  in 
the  eight  Member  States  with 
levels  of  youth 
the  highest 
unemployment (61). 

(61) 
Ireland,  Greece,  Spain, 
Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Portugal 
and Slovakia. 

Latvia: Action taken: YES; Action completed: NO; Completion date 31 December 2018: 

2013 saw the drafting of documents necessary for implementing  the  Youth Employment  Initiative, the granting  of EU 
funds, meetings with social partners and other activities. An action group was set up with the objective of pushing the 
problem of youth unemployment to a higher political level, and channelling additional national and EU funding towards 
resolving this problem. This objective was met and Latvia began implementing the Youth Guarantee in early 2014. The 
was followed by the approval of the 2014–2020 Operational Programme ‘Growth and Employment’. 

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

With a view to giving more aid to young people living in regions in which youth unemployment was higher than 25 % in 
2012, a European Union financial measure, the ‘Youth Employment Initiative’, was approved and allocated a budget of 
EUR 6.4 billion for 2014-2020 (for all eligible Member States). In the 2014-2020 financing period, projects also started 
to be implemented in Lithuania under the Youth Employment Initiative. The projects have not yet been completed. 

Portugal: Action taken: ; Action completed: ; Completion date: 

Nothing relevant to report.  

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

Ministry of Labour, Social Affairs and Family: Action is taken on an ongoing basis. Slovakia periodically provided the 
Commission,  as  required,  with  sufficient  qualitative  and  quantitative  information  on  how  existing  ESF  and  national 
measures for unemployed young people work in practice, with subsequent positive implications for their employability 
and  their  improved  status on  the  labour  market.  Statistical  Office  figures  for  2015  show  that  the youth  unemployment 
rate  declined  much  more  than  the  reduction  in  the  overall  unemployment  rate  (3.3  percentage  points  versus  1.7 
percentage points). Youth unemployment was 11.8 % lower in 2015 than in 2014. The unemployment rate in the 15-24 
age group in 2015 (26.4 %) was 7.0 percentage points lower than in 2011 (33.4 %). 

The  assessment  of  operational  programme  changes  proposed  by  Slovakia  focused,  besides  budgetary  aspects,  on  the 
ways in which the best use could be made of the resources. These suggestions of material aspects to boost employment 
were  included  in  the  proposals  submitted  for  operational  programme  changes  in  Slovakia  (specifically,  the  project 
solutions proposed under the Operational Programme Employment and Social Inclusion). 

Spain: Action taken: ; Action completed: ; Completion date: 

ESF 

The  recommendations  in  the  Court  of  Auditors’  special  report  No  17/2015  on  Youth  Action  Teams  are  already  being 
addressed  in  the  new  2014-2020 regulatory  framework:  Under  Article  30  of  Regulation  (EU)  No  1303/2013, 
amendments of operational programmes must be duly justified and must in particular set out the impact of the changes on 
achieving the objectives of Europe 2020; also, under Article 50 of the same Regulation, the annual reports must set out 
key information on implementation of the operational programmes and their priorities by reference to the financial data 

35 

 
 
Paragraph 
3.74 – 
footnote 62 

together  with 

The  environment  and  climate 
change, 
its 
implications for EU policies in a 
number  of  other  areas,  such  as 
agriculture and energy, is one of 
the  global  challenges  we  are 
targeting 
in  our  2013-2017 
report  on 
strategy.  So  our 
EUfunded waste water treatment 
plants in the Danube river basin 
examined  whether  EU  support 
was  helping  Member  States 
achieve  its  waste  water  policy 
objectives (62) — a key element 
of  a  successful  environmental 
policy. We concluded that while 
EU financial support had played 
an  important  role  in  bringing 
forward  water  collection  and 
treatment,  this  had  not  been 
sufficient  to  meet  the  relevant 
deadlines. 

(62)  Special  report  No  2/2015, 
‘EU-funding  of  urban  waste 
water  treatment  plants  in  the 
further 
river  basin: 
Danube 
helping 
needed 
efforts 
Member  States  to  achieve  EU 
waste  water  policy  objectives’ 
(http://eca.europa.eu). 
The 
Member  States  covered  by  this 
audit  were  the  Czech  Republic, 
and 
Hungary, 

Romania 

in 

and  common  and  specific  indicators.  Under  Article  125,  this  information  must  also  be  provided  to  the  monitoring 
committees. 

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

The  main  measure  taken  in  the  field  of  waste  water  and  the  cleaning  thereof  is  the  implementation  and  subsequent 
operation  of  projects  supported  by  the  Operational  Programme  Environment  2007-2013  programming  period  in  Aid 
Areas 1.1 and 1.2 and the implementation and subsequent operation of projects supported by the Operational Programme 
Environment  2014-2020  programming  period  (specific  target  1.1).  Waste  water  collection  and  treatment  have  been 
prioritised under the two operational programmes, resulting in higher financial allocation. 

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

Factual finding that does not require action. 

Romania: Action taken: ; Action completed: ; Completion date: 

MM (Ministry of Environment): We agree with the conclusion of this observation. Romania has intensified its efforts for 
the development and implementation of projects concerning the urban waste water collection and treatment so that it may 
comply with the terms undertaken within the European integration process. 

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

Ministry of the Environment: The process of implementing Council Directive 91/271/EEC is still under way in Slovakia. 
Slovakia has concentrated maximum attention and financial resources into the building of public sewers and enhancing 
the efficiency of wastewater treatment plants in accordance with commitments enshrined in the Treaty of Accession of 
the  Slovak  Republic  to  the  EU.  Slovakia  creates  conditions  for  the  building  of  the  structures  necessary  for  urban 
wastewater  collection  and  treatment  in  accordance  with  the  requirements  of  Council  Directive  91/271/EEC.  The 
Operational  Programme  Environmental  Quality  2014-2020,  too,  includes  continuing  support  for  those  agglomerations 
with  a  population  equivalent  of  more  than  2 000  under  the  National  Programme  of  the  Slovak  Republic  for  the 
Implementation of Council Directive 91/271/EEC concerning urban waste water treatment that have yet to comply with 
that  Directive’s  requirements  –  EUR 400 million  has  been  allocated  from  the  EU  and  the  central  government  budget 
(public  resources).  Other  agglomerations  with  a  population  equivalent  of  below  2 000  will  be  covered  by  2014-2020 
operational programmes – the Integrated Regional Operational Programme and the Rural Development Programme (EU 
funds + the central government budget + the own resources of the applicant, i.e. the municipality or water company) – in 
order to improve the water quality in the Danube river basin. 

36 

 
 
Paragraph 
3.75 

Slovakia. 

A  later  report  in  2015  then 
examined  a  different  aspect  of 
water  quality  in  the  Danube 
basin: progress by the same four 
Member  States  in  meeting  the 
requirements  of 
the  water 
framework directive (63), whose 
main objective from 2000 was to 
achieve  good  water  quality  by 
2015 
(with  some  exceptions 
possible). We concluded that the 
implementation  of  measures  co-
funded  by  the  EU  had  led  to 
in  water 
little 
the 
quality. 
introduction  of 
river  basin 
management  plans  as  a  tool  for 
integrated  water  management 
the 
had  been  a  strength  of 
directive, 
the 
in 
Member  States’  plans  suffered 
in 
from 
the 
identification 
pollution 
pressures and in the definition of 
remedial measures. 

Indeed,  while 

shortcomings 

improvement 

practice 

of 

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

The  main  measure  taken  with  a  view  to  achieving  good  quality  of  water  was  the  implementation  and  subsequent 
operation  of  projects  supported  by  the  Operational  Programme  Environment  2007-2013  programming  period  in  Aid 
Areas 1.1 and 1.2 and the implementation and subsequent operation of projects supported by the Operational Programme 
Environment 2014-2020 programming period (specific target 1.1). Projects completed so far as part of the Operational 
Programme Environment 2007 - 2013 in Aid Areas 1.1 and 1.2 led to an improvement in the status of surface water and 
groundwater. This has been achieved by reducing the use of general and specific sources of pollution and eutrophication 
of surface water. This also led to ensuring problem-free supply of high-quality drinking water to the public.  

The  measures  taken  to  improve  the  state  of  surface  water  and  groundwater  (improvement  of  the  sewage  system  and 
wastewater  treatment)  are  also  presented  in  the  approved  river  basin  management  plans  for  the  period  2016  to  2021. 
These measures directly linked to improving water will be promoted as a matter of priority at the approval stage. 

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

The ECA did not define any specific measures for the Member State. Accordingly, no actions were taken in response to 
the report. 

Romania: Action taken: ; Action completed: ; Completion date: 

We  do  not  agree  with  the  conclusion  of  this  observation.  The  Management  Plan  identifies  all  pollution  pressures  and 
defines remedial measures. We are experiencing difficulties with the implementation of these measures. 

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

Ministry  of  the  Environment:  Slovakia  is  currently  implementing  Council  Directive 91/271/EEC.  Slovakia  has 
concentrated maximum attention and financial resources into the building of public sewers and enhancing the efficiency 
of  wastewater  treatment  plants  in  accordance  with  commitments  enshrined  in  the  Treaty  of  Accession  of  the  Slovak 
Republic  to  the  EU.  While  Slovakia  creates  conditions  for  the  building  of  the  necessary  structures,  progress  in  the 
implementation of the Directive is mainly in the hands of infrastructure owners.  

As at 15 September 2015 (in the period leading up to the approval of the Danube and Vistula river basin management 
plans),  projects  financed  by  the  Operational  Programme  Environment  and  concerning  164  agglomerations  with  a 
population equivalent of more than 2 000 had been completed or were in progress. There is a realistic prospect that, upon 
completion,  they  will  make  a  major  contribution  to  environmental  protection  and  compliance  with  Slovakia’s 
commitments. The effects of this process are already being felt in the gradual rise in the numbers of inhabitants living in 
housing connected to public sewers and, in particular, in improvements in the parameters of the treated wastewater that is 
discharged and in reductions in the amount of pollution discharged into the aquatic environment. 

37 

 
 
In 2014, improvements were observed in the collection of wastewater via the sewage system In accordance with Article 3 
of the Directive, all of the pollution generated in five agglomeration was collected by the sewage system. Compared to 
2012, there was an increase both in the number of inhabitants connected to the sewage system and in the length (km) of 
the sewage system built. There were 63 agglomerations where pollution was not collected via the sewage system in 2012, 
a figure that had been reduced by seven in 2014. The quantity of pollution collected by individual appropriate systems 
and pollution that is neither collected nor treated is waning.  

There  have  also  been  improvements  in  urban  wastewater  treatment.  There  were  13  more  urban  wastewater  treatment 
plants in 2014 than in 2012. A rise (by 15) was also reported  in  the number  of wastewater treatment plants where the 
quality of the urban wastewater that had been treated satisfied the Directive’s requirements for secondary treatment. In 
keeping  with  Article 4  of  the  Directive,  253  wastewater  treatment  plants  satisfied  technological  and  monitoring 
requirements.  This  was  10  more  than  in  2012.  In  2014,  evaluations  were  run  on  83  plants  treating  wastewater  from 
agglomerations  with  a  population  equivalent  of  more  than  10 000.  Of  these,  53  satisfied  technological  and  monitoring 
requirements. Compared to 2012, there were improvements at 10 wastewater treatment plants.  

Wastewater collection and treatment activities are also priorities under the Danube and Vistula River Basin Management 
Plans  (the  2016-2021  Slovak  Water  Plan).  Measures  under  action  plans  to  eliminate  pollution  caused  by  polluted  or 
inadequately  treated  wastewater  were  proposed  on  the  strength  of  an  analysis  of  compliance  with  the  requirements  of 
Council  Directive  91/271/EEC  concerning  urban  waste  water  treatment  (an  assessment  of  compliance  with  the 
requirements of Articles 3, 4 and 5 of the Directive).  

The Danube River Basin Management Plan requires measures for collecting systems and individual appropriate systems 
(to  bring  the  collection  of  urban  wastewater  into  conformity  with  Article 3  of  Council  Directive  91/271/EEC)  in  123 
agglomerations.  Measures  related  to  urban  wastewater  treatment  (to achieve  compliance  with  Articles  4  and  5  of  the 
Directive) are required in 63 agglomerations (according to the figures for 2012). 

The  Vistula  River  Basin  Management  Plan  requires  measures  in  two  agglomerations  (to  bring  the  collection  of  urban 
water into conformity with Article 3 of Council Directive 91/271/EEC). Measures related to urban wastewater treatment 
(to  achieve  compliance  with  Articles  4  and  5  of  the  Directive)  are  required  in  three  agglomerations  (according  to  the 
figures for 2012). 

The implementation of measures under the Public Sewer Development Plan 2016-2021 (no specific measures have been 
stipulated)  was  proposed  in  the  form  of  supplementary  measures  in  the  Danube  and  Vistula  River  Basin  Management 
Plans. 

There  are  agglomerations  with  a  population  equivalent  of  below  2 000  in  Slovak  protected  areas  and  zones.  If 
groundwater and surface water is to be protected from polluted or inadequately treated wastewater, measures also need to 
be taken to remove or eliminate pollution from point sources in those agglomerations where a body of water is in poor 
condition  or  where  a  body  of  water  remains  in  good  condition  but  a  persistent  upward  trend  in  pollution  has  been 
detected.  Other  activities  in  agglomerations  with  a  population  equivalent  of  below  2 000  will  be  geared  towards 

38 

 
 
supporting  the  construction  of  wastewater  treatment  plants  in  those  cases  where  a  sewage  system  is  already  up  and 
running (and covers at least 80 % of the entire agglomeration). 

The Danube and Vistula River Basin Management Plans (the 2016-2021 Slovak Water Plan) include an outlook for the 
quantity of pollution discharged by agglomerations, using 2021 as a baseline. 

Outlook as at 2021 

The  outlook  as  at  2021  has  been  drawn  up  with  the  assumption  of  compliance  with  the  conditions  laid  down  by  the 
Treaty of Accession of the Slovak Republic to the EU regarding the implementation of Council Directive 91/271/EEC 
concerning  urban  waste  water  treatment.  According  to  the  Treaty,  the  requirements  of  Council  Directive 91/271/EEC 
should  be  fulfilled  by  31  December  2015,  which  is  the  (initial)  deadline  for  the  attainment  of  objectives  under  the 
Water Framework Directive, by 2021, and at the latest by 2027. 

The  following  approach  was  taken  to  estimate  the  impacts  of  compliance  with  the  requirements  of  Council 
Directive 91/271/EEC on the quantity of pollution discharged, measured by the BOD5 and CODCr indicators:  

 

 

 

 

the quantity of pollution that is to be collected and subsequently eliminated at a wastewater treatment plant depends 
on  the  size  of  the  agglomeration  –  the  baseline  was  taken  to  be  the  sizes  of  agglomerations  (expressed  as  the 
population  equivalent)  for  2010,  as  indicated  in  the  National  Programme  for  the  Implementation  of  Council 
Directive  91/271/EEC,  as  amended  by  Commission  Directive 98/15/EC  and  Regulation 1882/2003/EC  of  the 
European Parliament and of the Council – Update as at 31 December 2010; 

The  pollution  generated,  expressed  as  follows:  BOD5  =  60 g/PE/day,  CODCr  =  120 g/PE/day,  Ntotal  = 
11 g/PE/day, Ptotal = 1.5 g/PE/day. The specific generation as regards Ptotal takes account of the Regulation of the 
European Parliament and of the Council Amending Regulation (EC) No 648/2004 in relation to use of phosphates 
and  other  phosphorus  compounds  in  household  detergents;  restrictions  on  the  content  of  phosphates  and  other 
phosphorus compounds in consumer detergents will take effect on 30 June 2013.  

Sewage disposal rate – 100 % of the agglomeration; 

The efficiency of pollution elimination at urban wastewater treatment plants for the individual quality indicators, as 
set out in the following table 

Table: Efficiency  of  the  elimination  of  pollution  from  the  wastewater  treatment  plants  of  agglomerations  with  a 
population equivalent of more than 2 000  

Size class (by PE) 

Efficiency of elimination (%)  

BOD5 

CODCr 

Ntotal 

Ptotal 

39 

 
 
2 000-10 000 

more than 10 000 

70 

  90 

75 

85 

35 

70 

20 

80 

The results of the calculation of the outlook as at 2021, covering the projected scenario for the individual sub-basins, are 
presented in the table below, which contains a comparison of the outlook as at 2021 versus 2011, as well as the baseline 
situation from 2005. 

Table: Comparison of the outlook for the quantity of pollution discharged by agglomerations with the baseline situation 

Sub- 

basin 

Morava 

Danube 

Váh 

Hron 

Ipeľ 

Slaná 

Bodva 

Hornád 

Bodrog 

BOD5 (t/year) 

CODCr (t/year) 

2005 

2011 

2021 

change 

2005 

201
1 

2021 

change 

78 

56 

575 

519 

395 

355 

1325 

970 

543 

311 

458 

147 

1476 

696 

1253 

557 

1965 

3651 

7050 

5085 

12845 

988
9 

19615 

9726 

685 

262 

1008 

746 

2327 

919 

2479 

1560 

160 

126 

300 

174 

154 

17 

60 

10 

400 

340 

212 

202 

542 

513 

51 

319 

705 

215 

926 

41 

354 

386 

711 

313 

418 

251 

1251 

1 000 

1537 

840 

3344 

2504 

624 

150 

1017 

867 

1434 

631 

2463 

1832 

Danube river basin administrative area 

3191 

6330 

12271  9080 

21120 

139
05 

32464 

18559 

40 

 
 
 
Vistula river basin administrative area 

245 

262 

466 

204 

1581 

606 

1323 

717 

Slovakia – total 

3454 

6575 

12737  9284 

22701 

145
11 

33787 

19276 

Source of data for 2005, 2011: Summary water records  

Note:  pollution  discharged  in  2005  and  2011  includes  pollution  from  industrial  undertakings,  if  connected  to  public 

sewers.  

A comparison of the outlook as at 2021 with the previous period indicates that, on average for Slovakia as a whole, there 
has been an increase in the pollution entering surface water expressed by the pollution indicators examined.  

The outlook figures should be viewed as the maximum permissible or the maximum possible pollution discharged upon 
compliance  with  the  conditions  laid  down  in  the  Treaty  of  Accession  of  the  Slovak  Republic  to  the  EU,  which 
incorporates  steps  to  expand  wastewater  collection  and  treatment,  including  the  introduction  of  technology  to  magnify 
reductions in nitrogen and phosphorus. However, the actual levels of pollution discharged, broken down by the various 
parameters  and  river  basins,  will  always  be  below  these  indicative  values  because  minimum  limit  requirements  for 
reductions in the individual pollution components are applied in the calculations. 

Estimate of costs  

The costs of sewage systems and wastewater treatment plants in agglomerations with a population equivalent of more 
than 2000 up to 2021, taken for Slovakia as a whole, are estimated at EUR 748 million, of which EUR 635 million will 
be channelled into collecting systems and EUR 113 million into wastewater treatment plants. 

Projected  sources  of  financing:  EU  funds  (Operational  Programme  Environmental  Quality,  Integrated  Regional 
Operational Programme and the Rural Development Programme for 2014-2020) + the central government budget + own 
resources (applicant – the municipality or water company). 

Measures to eliminate pollution from agriculture 

Other  measures  to  achieve  good  water  conditions,  as  proposed  in  the  Danube  and  Vistula  River  Basin  Management 
Plans, are aimed at agriculture.  

From  1  January  2016,  an  amendment  to  the  Fertilisers  Act  took  effect.  This  amendment  includes  selected  farming 
principles  currently  applicable  to  vulnerable  areas  and  requirements  for  the  storage  and  application  of  liquid  farm 
fertilisers outside of vulnerable areas (as pursued by the Commission in the field of water protection). Likewise, farming 
conditions in defined vulnerable areas are incorporated into the above amendment to the Fertilisers Act.  

Cross-compliance rules will also contribute to the attainment of good water conditions. They will be applied in relation 
to direct payments and to payments for the Rural Development Programme 2014-2020. Cross-compliance rules are set 

41 

 
 
out in Annex 2 to Government Regulation No 342/2014. 

The new common agricultural policy 2014-2021 proposes, in its first pillar, further greening accounting for 30 % of the 
national envelope of direct payments. Greening is an environmental payment to promote sustainable production, where 
30 % of the budgetary envelope is earmarked for binding measures that will help to address climate and environmental 
issues. Greening does not extend much beyond the framework of the current structure in place for agricultural production 
in Slovakia. 

Most  agricultural  entities  in  Slovakia  already  meet  conditions  to  ensure  the  green  cover  of  the  soil.  In  this  respect, 
Greening is viewed in Slovakia as a legitimate public requirement in the performance of agriculture’s role in the handling 
of environmental issues: 

 

crop diversification – intended to eliminate the cultivation of monocultures and the degradation of the soil and 
biodiversity;  

  permanent  grassland  –  intended  to  protect  and  maintain  permanent  grassland,  to  increase  the  effectiveness  of 

erosion control, to retain water in the countryside and the cycle thereof, etc.;  

  voluntary  fallowing  covering  7 %  of  arable  land  –  intended  to  eliminate  erosion  and  to  retain  water  (grassy 

protective strips, terraces), etc.  

These measures must be applied to all of the land (not only in organic farming systems), without exception; land used in 
this  way  is  also  widespread  in  the  Slovak  agriculture.  The  scope  of  the  measures  needs  to  be  identified,  declared  and 
cultivated. 

Measures to reduce the pollution of groundwater with pesticides are derived from national legislation (Act No 405/2011 
on phytosanitary care and amending Act of the National Council of the Slovak Republic No 145/1995 on administration 
fees,  as  amended,  and  the  related  implementing  regulations).  The  use  of  plant  protection  products  is  also  enshrined  in 
cross-compliance  (Government  Regulation  No 342/2014  laying  down  rules  for  the  granting  of  aid  in  agriculture  in 
connection with schemes of decoupled direct payments). 

The implementation of measures under the Rural Development Programme 2014–2020, on a voluntary basis, is proposed 
in the form of supplementary measures to eliminate pollution from agriculture. 

Measures to eliminate pollution by priority and relevant substances 

As  at  2011,  37  establishments  had  been  identified  in  Slovakia  with  the  discharge  of  wastewater  containing  priority 
substances and substances relevant to Slovakia, and indirect discharge, i.e. via the wastewater treatment plants of other 
operators.  

In  total,  21  priority  substances  for  which  environmental  quality  standards  (EQS)  are  defined  at  EU  level  (Directive 
2008/105/EC) are permitted in the discharge of wastewater in Slovakia. That number includes seven priority dangerous 
substances for which measures need to be taken to stop or phase out discharge, emissions and leaks in a timetable of not 

42 

 
 
more than 20 years.  

To eliminate pollution with priority and relevant substances, measures have been proposed that stem from the pursuit of 
requirements under Council Directive 91/271/EEC concerning urban waste water treatment and Directive 2010/75/EU of 
the European Parliament and of the Council on industrial emissions (integrated pollution prevention and control). 

Outlook as at 2021 

The development of industry and economic activity is envisaged in all sub-basins. Despite this, the increased discharge 
of  pollution  from  industrial  undertakings  is  not  anticipated.  On  the  contrary,  there  is  expected  to be  a  fall  in pollution 
characterised  by  the  indicators  of  priority  substances  and  substances  relevant  to  Slovakia,  provided  that  wastewater  is 
discharged  in  accordance  with  the  requirements  of  Act  No 39/2013  on  integrated  pollution prevention  and  control  and 
amending certain laws, and Implementing Decree of the Ministry of the Environment No 183/2013, which implements 
that Act.  

More detailed information can be found in the Danube and Vistula River Basin Management Plans (2016-2021). 

Estonia: Action taken: ; Action completed: ; Completion date: 

Some of the projects are being implemented. 

Latvia: Action taken: YES; Action completed: ; Completion date: 1) Measures are ongoing 2) 11 August 2011 

The report published by the Court of Auditors on security of energy supply and the creation of the EU’s internal energy 
market  states  that:  1)  the  development  of  cross-border  infrastructure  requires  cooperation  amongst  Member  States;  2) 
Member  States  must  ensure  that  their  National  Regulatory  Authorities  (NRAs)  are  independent  and  do  not  face 
restrictions on the scope of their role. The NRAs should have sufficient resources available for their activities, including 
allowing them to participate fully in EU-level cooperation activities. 

1) During the Latvian Presidency of the Baltic Council of Ministers in 2016, several meetings of the Baltic Council of 
Ministers  Energy  committee  were  organised  (29 January,  15 April,  3 June,  15 September,  next  meeting  scheduled  for 
10 November) to address current issues in the field of energy, including cross-border electricity and gas infrastructure; 
work  was  also  undertaken  on  the  establishment  of  the  regional  gas  market  at  meetings  of  regional  gas  groups 
(28 January, 29 March, 14–16 September, next meeting scheduled for 7 November). As Nordic Cooperation NB8 format 
coordinator  Latvia  also  organised  a  meeting  of  NB8  ministers  in  cooperation  with  the  Czech  Republic,  during  its 
presidency of the Visegrad Group. At the meeting discussions were held about priority measures, inter alia with regard to 
energy. 

COM reply 
to paragraph 
3.77  

is 

through 

energy  market, 

The  Commission 
taking 
concrete  steps  to  remove  the 
remaining market barriers to the 
in 
internal 
regional 
particular 
cooperation 
frameworks 
involving 
different  Member 
States  and  in  the  context  of 
preparation  of  its  market  design 
initiative.  With 
to 
infrastructure,  it  is  important  to 
note that: 

regard 

infrastructure 

(a)  energy 
is 
expected  to  be  financed  by  the 
market, i.e. user tariffs approved 
regulators; 
independent 
by 
financial 
from  EU 
support 
budget  therefore  should  be  the 
exception rather than the rule; 

(b)  where  financial  support  has 
security  of 
been 

allocated, 

2)  On  11  August  2011  amendments  to  the  Law  on  public  service  regulators  entered  into  force,  laying  down  that  a 
regulator  is  an  institutionally  and  functionally  self-sufficient,  autonomous  body  with  full  rights,  is  governed  by  public 

43 

 
 
 
has 

often 

supply 
been 
significantly  improved.  A  good 
example  are  the  Baltic  States 
where  support  from  both  EEPR 
and CEF to key projects has not 
only increased security of supply 
in  electricity  but  also  helped 
wholesale prices to converge. 

law  and  acts  independently  in  implementing  its  legislatively  approved  budget.  Until  the  entry  into  force  of  these 
amendments, the regulator as a body was under the supervision of the Ministry of the Economy. 

The  regulator’s  decision-making  entity  is  its  board,  whose  members  are  appointed  by  the  Saeima.  The  regulator’s 
decisions can be ruled unlawful and revoked only by a court. The regulator’s work is financed by state duties payable by 
registered traders for the regulation of public services, and this is calculated on the basis of the turnover from services 
subject to regulation. 

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

With a view to removing obstacles to the creation of an internal energy market and thus increasing energy security for 
Lithuania (and for the EU as a whole), Lithuania took the following specific action: 

1.  Through infrastructure development. Lithuania has strengthened its security of energy supply by implementing major 

energy infrastructure projects: 

(a)  Following  the  entry  into  commercial  service  of  the  liquefied  natural  gas  terminal  in  Klaipėda  in  January  2015, 
Lithuania diversified its gas imports.  

(b) In December 2015, two interconnectors – with Sweden (NordBalt) and Poland (LitPol Link) – started operating. 
These projects had a positive effect on reducing energy prices (natural gas (for household heating) was 43 % cheaper 
than in 2012, while electricity was 17 % cheaper than in 2013, at a level comparable with 2009 prices). 

(c) Lithuania’s physical isolation from  the European  gas network could come  to an end in 2021,  when the new bi-
directional  gas  interconnector  with  Poland  (GIPL)  will  be  fully  implemented.  It  will  be  the  first  gas  interconnector 
between the eastern Baltic region and the continental European gas network. Once GIPL starts operating, security of 
energy supply will increase still further. 

(d)  The  Baltic  states  have  also  agreed  a  common  strategic  goal,  namely  de-synchronisation  from  the 
Russian/Belarusian  (i.e.  IPS/UPS)  electricity  grid  and  synchronisation  of  their  power  systems  with  the  European 
networks.  

It should  be  stressed that the EU financial support granted (from the CEF  (Connecting  Europe Facility), the European 
Energy Programme for Recovery and EU structural aid resources) made a significant contribution towards the successful 
implementation  of  energy  infrastructure  projects.  Consequently,  there  will  continue  to  be  a  need  for  such  support  in 
future in order to implement important energy infrastructure projects that may not be commercially attractive and may 
not get market funding. 

2.  Through regional cooperation. The Baltic Energy Market Interconnection Plan (BEMIP) is a European Commission 
initiative  to  integrate  the  energy  markets  of  the  Baltic  States  –  Lithuania,  Latvia  and  Estonia  –  into  the  EU,  thus 
completing  the  creation  of  the  common  EU  internal  energy  market.  The  main  aim  of  BEMIP  is  to  create  a  properly 
functioning,  integrated  energy  market,  along  with  the  necessary  energy  infrastructure,  and  to  ensure  that  the  energy 

44 

 
 
market created in the Baltic region is competitive, sustainable and secure. 

It  should  also  be  noted  that:  Lithuania  still  has  the  two  most  important  projects  to  implement,  namely  GIPL  and 
synchronisation with CEN (the Continental European Networks). 

Bulgaria: Action taken: YES; Action completed: NO; Completion date: 

Portugal: Action taken: ; Action completed: ; Completion date: 

Nothing relevant to report.  

Paragraph 
3.88 

Annex 3.1 

A key success factor for Horizon 
2020  is  effective  synergy  and 
complementarity 
between 
national  and  European  research 
and 
innovation  programmes. 
Our  partners  in  the  supreme 
audit institutions of Bulgaria and 
Portugal  found  that  while  there 
were  areas  of  complementarity 
in  their  countries,  there  were 
also  some  problems  at 
the 
national  level  (see  paragraphs 
3.22 and 3.23). 

Special  reports  adopted  by  the 
European  Court  of  Auditors  in 
2015 

report  No  19/2015 
Special 
‘More attention to results needed 
to 
the  delivery  of 
technical assistance to Greece’. 

improve 

45 

 
 
 
 
 
 
CHAPTER 4 – Revenue 

Paragraphs 

Observations in the 2015 
Court's Annual Report 

Paragraph 
4.5.(a).(iv) 

Annex  1.1  sets  out  the  key 
elements  of  our  audit  approach 
and  methodology.  For  the  audit 
following 
of 
specific points should be noted: 

revenue, 

the 

(a)  We  examined  the  following 
systems:  

(iv) the TOR accounting systems 
(8)  in  three  selected  Member 
States 
and 
Lithuania)  (9)  and  a  review  of 
their  systems  for  post-clearance 
audits. 

(France, 

Italy 

Member States' replies 

France: Action taken: OUI; Action completed: NON; Completion date: 

La  Cour  n’a  pas  pris  en  compte  les  remarques  de  la  France  à  ce  sujet.  Les  autorités  françaises  contestent  la 
représentativité de l’échantillon constitué et examiné par les auditeurs de la Cour (cf compléments ci-dessous). 

En  France,  les  contrôles  après  dédouanement,  autrement  appelés  contrôles  ex  post,  sont  répartis  entre  les  contrôles  ex 
post de 1er niveau (« ex post 1 ») et les contrôles ex post de 2nd niveau (« ex post 2 »). 

La vérification de la régularité de certaines opérations de dédouanement ne nécessite pas la présence de la marchandise et 
peut donc être reportée dans le temps. Ces opérations de vérifications sont effectuées dans le cadre de contrôles ex post 
de 1er niveau. 
Réalisé suite à une analyse de risques, le contrôle ex post de 1er niveau permet d’accompagner la diminution du nombre 
de contrôles ex ante. 
Le contrôle ex post de 1er niveau est généralement de nature documentaire. Il est destiné à s’assurer de la régularité des 
opérations  douanières  réalisées  et  du  respect  de  la  législation  en  vigueur.  Il  peut  être  effectué  au  bureau  ou  dans  les 
locaux  de  l’opérateur.  Il  est  circonscrit  à  la  vérification  de  la  présence  des  documents  déclarés,  de  l’exactitude  des 
énonciations de la déclaration en douane et des documents annexes, de la conformité des documents d’accompagnement. 
Il permet en outre le suivi de l’autogestion du crédit d’opérations diverses – COD – et des régimes économiques (régimes 
particuliers). 

Dans le cadre des procédures domiciliées, les services de contrôle doivent examiner les déclarations de régularisation et 
les inscriptions en comptabilité commerciale correspondantes. 

Ce type de contrôles a vocation à réduire le niveau des contrôles  ex ante et à les reporter dans le temps afin de libérer 
plus  rapidement  la  marchandise  lors  du  dédouanement  compte  tenu  en  particulier  de  la  dispense  de  présentation  des 
documents. 

La réalisation de ce contrôle relève de la compétence exclusive des bureaux de contrôle et du pôle contrôle des bureaux 
principaux. Toutefois, dans le cadre des PDU (Procédures de Dédouanement Uniques  – nationales et communautaires), 
les  pôles  contrôle  de  chaque  bureau  impliqué  (bureau  de  domiciliation  et  bureaux  de  rattachement)  assurent  en 
concertation la réalisation des contrôles ex post de 1er niveau. 
Le contrôle ex post de 1er niveau est programmé et diligenté dans un délai maximum de 4 mois à compter de la délivrance 

46 

 
 
 
du bon à enlever, période qui suffit à s’assurer du respect des obligations, notamment documentaires, des opérateurs et 
remplir l’objectif de contrôler des opérations récentes. 
Néanmoins,  lorsque  le  bureau  décèle  une  irrégularité  à  l’occasion  d’un  contrôle  ex  post  de  1er  niveau,  il  est  invité  à 
poursuivre  et  à  approfondir  ses  contrôles  au-delà  du  délai  de  4  mois  à  compter  de  la  délivrance  du  bon  à  enlever,  à 
condition que les irrégularités concernent un nombre limité de déclarations. Dans le cas contraire, sur décision du chef de 
POC  (Pôle  d’Orientation  des  Contrôles)  et  après  étude  du  dossier  par  la  CROC  (Cellule  Régionale  d’Orientation  des 
Contrôles) chargée de définir les orientations générales des contrôles ex post de 1er niveau, cette poursuite des contrôles 
est confiée au service régional d’enquêtes – SRE, notamment si une certaine technicité dont dispose les enquêteurs doit 
être mise en œuvre. 

De  fait,  toute  irrégularité  constatée  en  ex  ante  ou  en  ex  post  1  peut  faire  l’objet  d’une  recherche  des  antérieurs  par  la 
cellule de supervision en liaison avec la CROC en vue d’un contrôle ex post qui sera, selon le potentiel du dossier ou sa 
complexité, de 1er ou de 2nd niveau. L’information est diffusée au SRE de manière systématique. 
Axé sur la lutte contre la fraude, le contrôle ex post de 2nd niveau prend la forme de contrôles approfondis de l’activité de 
commerce  extérieur  des  entreprises  ou  d’enquêtes  de  toute  nature  portant  sur  des  réglementations  que  la  douane  est 
chargée de faire appliquer. 
Le contrôle ex post de 2nd niveau est diligenté au-delà du délai de 4 mois à compter de la délivrance du bon à enlever et 
ce jusqu’à la limite de la prescription de 3 ans (4 ans pour les contrôles FEAGA). 
Le contrôle ex post de 2nd niveau relève de la compétence exclusive de la direction des enquêtes douanières - DED et des 
SRE,  mais  si  des  irrégularités  pouvant  concerner  un  nombre  limité  de  déclarations  sont  décelées  par  le  bureau  à 
l’occasion d’un contrôle ex post de 1er niveau, ce dernier peut poursuivre ce contrôle après autorisation du chef de POC 
qui en informe le SRE. 

La sélection des déclarations à contrôler est réalisée en privilégiant celles qui présentent un fort enjeu douanier ou fiscal. 

Concernant  les  bases  réglementaires  (la  norme)  citées  par  les  auditeurs  de  la  Cour  et  en  vigueur  lors  de  la  mission 
d’audit : 

les  autorités  françaises  soutiennent  qu’en  France,  la  majorité  des  contrôles  après  dédouanement  effectués  « afin  de 
s’assurer de l’exactitude des énonciations de la déclaration » en vertu des dispositions de l’article 78 du code des douanes 
communautaire (CDC) sont, dans la terminologie nationale utilisée par les autorités douanières françaises, les contrôles 
ex post 1. En effet, la majorité des contrôles ex post 2, même si certains ont également cette vocation par extension de 
contrôles  ex  post  1,  est  dévolue  à  la  lutte  contre  la  fraude.  Les  contrôles  ex  post  2  qui  font  appel  à  des  compétences 
spécifiques dont seuls les services d’enquêtes disposent ne sont donc pas des contrôles de régularité tels que définis par 
l’article 78 du CDC, norme sur laquelle les auditeurs de la Cour se sont appuyés pour réaliser leur audit. 

Compte  tenu  de  ce  qui  précède,  il  est  normal  que  ces  contrôles  figurent  dans  le  rapport  annuel  relatif  à  l’activité  de 
contrôle  des  RPT.  Toutefois,  dans  le  rapport,  l’information  chiffrée  se  rapporte  à  l’ensemble  des  contrôles  ex  post  2 

47 

 
 
Paragraph 
4.5.(a).(iv) - 
footnote 9 

(9)  These  three  Member  States 
were  selected  on  account  of  the 
significant  size  of  their  TOR 
into 
contribution,  and 
consideration 
rotational 
a 
approach. 

taking 

réalisés  annuellement,  sans  distinction  entre  les  contrôles  de  régularité  et  les  contrôles  à  visée  LCF,  celle-ci  étant 
impossible  à  réaliser  en  l’état  actuel  du  système  d’information  (SI)  douanier  national.  Les  contrôles  ex  post  2  de 
régularité  étant  moins  nombreux  que  ceux  à  visée  LCF,  ils  sont  encore  moins  nombreux  rapportés  au  nombre  de 
contrôles  ex  post  1  (inférieurs  à  7,93  %  sur  la  base  des  données  quantitatives  pour  le  rapport  annuel  2014  cité  par  les 
auditeurs) et encore moins nombreux rapportés au nombre de contrôles a posteriori (inférieurs à 6,84 % sur la base des 
données  quantitatives  pour  le  rapport  annuel  2014  cité  par  les  auditeurs).  Par  conséquent,  les  contrôles  ex  post  2  de 
régularité  ne  peuvent  être  considérés  comme  représentatifs  des  contrôles  a  posteriori  réalisés  en  France  en  vertu  des 
dispositions de l’article 78 du CDC. 

Ainsi, compte tenu de l’introduction de ce biais majeur, les autorités françaises considèrent l’échantillon de contrôles ex 
post 2 sélectionné par les auditeurs de la Cour comme non représentatif des contrôles de régularité a posteriori qu’elles 
effectuent  (contrôles  réalisés  majoritairement  en  ex  post  1),  base  normative  retenue  par  les  auditeurs  pour  évaluer  la 
surveillance douanière au niveau national. 

Italy: Action taken: ; Action completed: ; Completion date: 

No measures for adoption were found. 

France: Action taken: OUI; Action completed: NON; Completion date: 

La  Cour  n’a  pas  pris  en  compte  les  remarques  de  la  France  à  ce  sujet.  Les  autorités  françaises  contestent  la 
représentativité de l’échantillon constitué et examiné par les auditeurs de la Cour (cf compléments ci-dessous). 

En  France,  les  contrôles  après  dédouanement,  autrement  appelés  contrôles  ex  post,  sont  répartis  entre  les  contrôles  ex 
post de 1er niveau (« ex post 1 ») et les contrôles ex post de 2nd niveau (« ex post 2 »). 

La vérification de la régularité de certaines opérations de dédouanement ne nécessite pas la présence de la marchandise et 
peut donc être reportée dans le temps. Ces opérations de vérifications sont effectuées dans le cadre de contrôles ex post 
de 1er niveau. 
Réalisé suite à une analyse de risques, le contrôle ex post de 1er niveau permet d’accompagner la diminution du nombre 
de contrôles ex ante. 
Le contrôle ex post de 1er niveau est généralement de nature documentaire. Il est destiné à s’assurer de la régularité des 
opérations  douanières  réalisées  et  du  respect  de  la  législation  en  vigueur.  Il  peut  être  effectué  au  bureau  ou  dans  les 
locaux  de  l’opérateur.  Il  est  circonscrit  à  la  vérification  de  la  présence  des  documents  déclarés,  de  l’exactitude  des 
énonciations de la déclaration en douane et des documents annexes, de la conformité des documents d’accompagnement. 
Il permet en outre le suivi de l’autogestion du crédit d’opérations diverses – COD – et des régimes économiques (régimes 
particuliers). 

Dans le cadre des procédures domiciliées, les services de contrôle doivent examiner les déclarations de régularisation et 

48 

 
 
les inscriptions en comptabilité commerciale correspondantes. 

Ce type de contrôles a vocation à réduire le niveau des contrôles  ex ante et à les reporter dans le temps afin de libérer 
plus  rapidement  la  marchandise  lors  du  dédouanement  compte  tenu  en  particulier  de  la  dispense  de  présentation  des 
documents. 

La réalisation de ce contrôle relève de la compétence exclusive des bureaux de contrôle et du pôle contrôle des bureaux 
principaux. Toutefois, dans le cadre des PDU (Procédures de Dédouanement Uniques  – nationales et communautaires), 
les  pôles  contrôle  de  chaque  bureau  impliqué  (bureau  de  domiciliation  et  bureaux  de  rattachement)  assurent  en 
concertation la réalisation des contrôles ex post de 1er niveau. 
Le contrôle ex post de 1er niveau est programmé et diligenté dans un délai maximum de 4 mois à compter de la délivrance 
du bon à enlever, période qui suffit à s’assurer du respect des obligations, notamment documentaires, des opérateurs et 
remplir l’objectif de contrôler des opérations récentes. 
Néanmoins,  lorsque  le  bureau  décèle  une  irrégularité  à  l’occasion  d’un  contrôle  ex  post  de  1er  niveau,  il  est  invité  à 
poursuivre  et  à  approfondir  ses  contrôles  au-delà  du  délai  de  4  mois  à  compter  de  la  délivrance  du  bon  à  enlever,  à 
condition que les irrégularités concernent un nombre limité de déclarations. Dans le cas contraire, sur décision du chef de 
POC  (Pôle  d’Orientation  des  Contrôles)  et  après  étude  du  dossier  par  la  CROC  (Cellule  Régionale  d’Orientation  des 
Contrôles) chargée de définir les orientations générales des contrôles ex post de 1er niveau, cette poursuite des contrôles 
est confiée au service régional d’enquêtes – SRE, notamment si une certaine technicité dont dispose les enquêteurs doit 
être mise en œuvre. 

De  fait,  toute  irrégularité  constatée  en  ex  ante  ou  en  ex  post  1  peut  faire  l’objet  d’une  recherche  des  antérieurs  par  la 
cellule de supervision en liaison avec la CROC en vue d’un contrôle ex post qui sera, selon le potentiel du dossier ou sa 
complexité, de 1er ou de 2nd niveau. L’information est diffusée au SRE de manière systématique. 
Axé sur la lutte contre la fraude, le contrôle ex post de 2nd niveau prend la forme de contrôles approfondis de l’activité de 
commerce  extérieur  des  entreprises  ou  d’enquêtes  de  toute  nature  portant  sur  des  réglementations  que  la  douane  est 
chargée de faire appliquer. 
Le contrôle ex post de 2nd niveau est diligenté au-delà du délai de 4 mois à compter de la délivrance du bon à enlever et 
ce jusqu’à la limite de la prescription de 3 ans (4 ans pour les contrôles FEAGA). 
Le contrôle ex post de 2nd niveau relève de la compétence exclusive de la direction des enquêtes douanières - DED et des 
SRE,  mais  si  des  irrégularités  pouvant  concerner  un  nombre  limité  de  déclarations  sont  décelées  par  le  bureau  à 
l’occasion d’un contrôle ex post de 1er niveau, ce dernier peut poursuivre ce contrôle après autorisation du chef de POC 
qui en informe le SRE. 

La sélection des déclarations à contrôler est réalisée en privilégiant celles qui présentent un fort enjeu douanier ou fiscal. 

Concernant  les  bases  réglementaires  (la  norme)  citées  par  les  auditeurs  de  la  Cour  et  en  vigueur  lors  de  la  mission 

49 

 
 
d’audit : 

les  autorités  françaises  soutiennent  qu’en  France,  la  majorité  des  contrôles  après  dédouanement  effectués  « afin  de 
s’assurer de l’exactitude des énonciations de la déclaration » en vertu des dispositions de l’article 78 du code des douanes 
communautaire (CDC) sont, dans la terminologie nationale utilisée par les autorités douanières françaises, les contrôles 
ex post 1. En effet, la majorité des contrôles ex post 2, même si certains ont également cette vocation par extension de 
contrôles  ex  post  1,  est  dévolue  à  la  lutte  contre  la  fraude.  Les  contrôles  ex  post  2  qui  font  appel  à  des  compétences 
spécifiques dont seuls les services d’enquêtes disposent ne sont donc pas des contrôles de régularité tels que définis par 
l’article 78 du CDC, norme sur laquelle les auditeurs de la Cour se sont appuyés pour réaliser leur audit. 

Compte  tenu  de  ce  qui  précède,  il  est  normal  que  ces  contrôles  figurent  dans  le  rapport  annuel  relatif  à  l’activité  de 
contrôle  des  RPT.  Toutefois,  dans  le  rapport,  l’information  chiffrée  se  rapporte  à  l’ensemble  des  contrôles  ex  post  2 
réalisés  annuellement,  sans  distinction  entre  les  contrôles  de  régularité  et  les  contrôles  à  visée  LCF,  celle-ci  étant 
impossible  à  réaliser  en  l’état  actuel  du  système  d’information  (SI)  douanier  national.  Les  contrôles  ex  post  2  de 
régularité  étant  moins  nombreux  que  ceux  à  visée  LCF,  ils  sont  encore  moins  nombreux  rapportés  au  nombre  de 
contrôles  ex  post  1  (inférieurs  à  7,93  %  sur  la  base  des  données  quantitatives  pour  le  rapport  annuel  2014  cité  par  les 
auditeurs) et encore moins nombreux rapportés au nombre de contrôles a posteriori (inférieurs à 6,84 % sur la base des 
données  quantitatives  pour  le  rapport  annuel  2014  cité  par  les  auditeurs).  Par  conséquent,  les  contrôles  ex  post  2  de 
régularité  ne  peuvent  être  considérés  comme  représentatifs  des  contrôles  a  posteriori  réalisés  en  France  en  vertu  des 
dispositions de l’article 78 du CDC. 

Ainsi, compte tenu de l’introduction de ce biais majeur, les autorités françaises considèrent l’échantillon de contrôles ex 
post 2 sélectionné par les auditeurs de la Cour comme non représentatif des contrôles de régularité a posteriori qu’elles 
effectuent  (contrôles  réalisés  majoritairement  en  ex  post  1),  base  normative  retenue  par  les  auditeurs  pour  évaluer  la 
surveillance douanière au niveau national. 

Italy: Action taken: ; Action completed: ; Completion date: 

No measures for adoption were found. 

Greece: Action taken: YES; Action completed: YES; Completion date: 13/11/2015 (Elstat) 

50 

Paragraph 
4.10 

(67 

lifted 

the  course  of  2015, 

the 
In 
184 
Commission 
transaction-
reservations 
117 
specific 
and 
transversalspecific), 
including 
the long outstanding transaction-
specific  GNP  reservation  on 
Greece,  relating  to  the  1995-
2001  period  (17).  We  did  not 

 
 
 
Title above 
paragraph 
4.12 

Paragraph 
4.12 

identify  serious  problems  in  the 
sample of lifted reservations that 
we analysed. At the end of 2015, 
there  were  55 
reservations 
covering discrete elements of the 
Member  States’  compilations 
(see  Figure  4.2),  of  which  39 
were transaction-specific and 16 
transversal-specific. 

are 

general 
There 
reservations  on  Greek  GNI  data 
covering 2008 and 2009 

still 

Greece: Action taken: YES; Action completed: NO; Completion date: In cooperation with Eurostat 

Elstat: Elstat sent the data to Eurostat for the years 2008 and 2009 in August 2014.  

We would point out that the data for 2008 and 2009 and the relevant documentation, sent in August 2014, are based on 
results of surveys and not on preliminary evaluations, since the final data from surveys were available and the requisite 
quality checks had also been carried out.  

During November 2014 a Eurostat mission was carried out at Elstat, during which direct verification was performed on 
the 2008 and 2009 data and the documentation that had been sent.  

In  addition,  in  September  2016  the  data  and  the  documentation  for  2002-2009  were  sent,  in  accordance  with  the 
requirements of the programme for forwarding the 2016 GNI questionnaire. 

We are waiting for a technical opinion to be drafted, so that the general reservation for 2008 and 2009 may be lifted. 

and 

The only general reservations in 
place at the end of 2015 were on 
Greek  GNI  data  for  the  years 
2009.  Although 
2008 
in 
progress  had  been  made 
addressing 
reservations, 
these 
they  were  not  lifted.  However, 
during  2015,  the  Commission 
continued  to  follow  closely  the 
problems 
Greece’s 
with 
compilation of national accounts 
and kept the technical assistance 
programme that had been set up 

Greece: Action taken: YES; Action completed: NO; Completion date: In cooperation with Eurostat 

Elstat: Elstat sent the data to Eurostat for the years 2008 and 2009 in August 2014.  

We would point out that the data for 2008 and 2009 and the relevant documentation, sent in August 2014, are based on 
results of surveys and not on preliminary evaluations, since the final data from surveys were available and the requisite 
quality checks had also been carried out.  

During November 2014 a Eurostat mission was carried out at Elstat, during which direct verification was performed on 
the 2008 and 2009 data and the documentation that had been sent.  

In  addition,  in  September  2016  the  data  and  the  documentation  for  2002-2009  were  sent,  in  accordance  with  the 
requirements of the programme for forwarding the 2016 GNI questionnaire. 

We are waiting for a technical opinion to be drafted, so that the general reservation for 2008 and 2009 may be lifted. 

51 

 
 
Paragraph 
4.16 

in  2014  with  the  objective  of 
independent  and 
creating  an 
statistical 
national 
stronger 
authority.  This  work  improves 
the  reliability  of  the  Greek  GNI 
data.  It  is  important,  as  the 
quality  of  that  data  can  have  an 
impact  on  all  Member  States’ 
individual contributions in terms 
of  GNI-based  own  resources 
(see footnote 4). 

the 

The quality, scope and results of 
the  post-clearance  audits  varied 
three 
substantially  across 
Member  States 
visited.  A 
specific  case  is  France,  where, 
for  post-clearance  audits,  a  debt 
can  be  notified  more  than  three 
years  after  it  was  incurred.  This 
approach  differs  from  that  in 
other Member States because the 
audits  are,  according  to  French 
legislation,  always  linked  to  the 
‘prevention 
and  pursuit  of 
customs  law  infringements’and 
are  thus  liable  to  give  rise  to 
criminal proceedings. Therefore, 
the  French  authorities  interrupt 
the three year timebarring period 
audits 
during  post-clearance 
(26). 

France: Action taken: OUI; Action completed: NON; Completion date:  

Sans objet pour l’État membre : aucune mesure/action à mettre en œuvre (cf. ci-dessous). 

S’agissant de l’application du CDC, l’article 221, paragraphe 3, précise que le délai de 3 ans n’est pas applicable dès lors 
que la dette douanière est née du fait d’un acte qui était passible, au moment où il a été commis, de poursuites judiciaires 
répressives. Dans ces conditions, la Cour de cassation française a pu considérer que la notification d’un procès-verbal de 
douane interrompait le délai de reprise. Cette jurisprudence a été intégrée dans le code des douanes national. Elle est en 
parfaite cohérence avec le CDC ; 

S’agissant  de  l’application  du  code  des  douanes  de  l’Union  (CDU),  l’article  103  permet  aux  États  membres  (EM)  de 
porter le délai de reprise de 3 à 5 ans, avec un maximum de 10 ans, dès lors que la dette douanière est née du fait d’un 
acte qui était passible, au moment où il a été commis, de poursuite judiciaires répressives. En conformité avec cet article, 
le  délai  de  reprise  a  été  porté  en  France  à  5  ans  et  il  peut  être  interrompu  par  un  procès-verbal  de  douane  jusqu’à  un 
maximum de 10 ans. Cette disposition est en parfaite conformité avec le CDU. 

Les  autorités  françaises  rappellent  que  la  Cour  de  justice  de  l’Union  (CJUE),  dans  un  arrêt  du  18  décembre  2007 
(Zefeser), aff. C-62/06, a précisé : 

- la lettre de l'article 3, paragraphe 1, du règlement n° 1697/79 (soit l'article 221, paragraphe 3, du CDC devenu depuis 
l'article 103, paragraphe 2, du CDU) vise les autorités compétentes, celles-ci ne pouvant être que les autorités qui n'ont pu 
recouvrer les droits dus du fait même de l'existence de l'acte passible de poursuites judiciaires répressives ; 

- la qualification d'acte passible de poursuites judiciaires répressives, au sens de cet article, n'est  effectuée que dans le 
cadre  et  aux  fins  d'une  procédure  de  nature  administrative  ayant  pour  unique  but  de  permettre  auxdites  autorités  de 
remédier à une perception incorrecte ou insuffisante, de la dette douanière ; 

- en l'absence de réglementation communautaire, la CJUE indique également qu'il appartient à l'ordre judiciaire interne 
de déterminer les conditions permettant aux redevables de contester l'application de la dérogation au délai de prescription 

52 

 
 
Paragraph 
4.18 

to 

good 

some 

need 
The 

Commission 

detected 
The 
shortcomings 
the  Member 
in 
States’  management  of  the  B 
accounts 
in  17  out  of  22 
Member  States  visited.  As  in 
previous  years,  we  also  found 
inefficiencies in the management 
of  the  B  accounts  (28).  We 
in 
practices 
noted 
though  debt 
Lithuania,  even 
recovery  was 
always 
not 
successful  (see  Figure  4.3).  In 
systematic 
Italy 
be 
weaknesses 
addressed. 
Italian 
authorities  could  not  confirm 
that  all  the  amounts  collected 
the  B  accounts  were 
from 
the  correct  A 
included 
account 
The 
Commission identified two other 
Member  States  (Belgium  and 
France) 
similar 
with 
inconsistencies  between  the  A 
statements. 
and  B  accounts 
These  shortcomings  did  not 
affect 
the 
overall  amounts  as  disclosed  in 
the  consolidated  accounts  of  the 
European Union. 

reliability  of 

statement. 

the 

in 

de 3 ans. 

Une telle interprétation peut être étendue à l'article 221 du CDC mais également à l'article 103 du CDU. 

Dans ces conditions, dès lors que la qualification d'acte passible de poursuites répressives relève de la compétence des 
EM, il va de soi que les conséquences d'une telle qualification relève également de la compétence des EM. 

Belgium: Action taken: YES; Action completed: NO; Completion date: 31/01/2017 

The  old  ‘B’ account  will  also  be  integrated  in  the  automated  system  (PLDA);  as  a  result,  the  same  number  of  manual 
errors may still occur.  However, the Commission is demanding further automation but the necessary budgets need to be 
provided. 

-  The  last  statements  were  corrected  and  transferred  to  the  Treasury.    A  mix-up  in  communications  meant  that  the 
Commission  received  the  wrong  statements.    This  was  verified  and  approved  by  the  Commission  during  an  audit  in 
October 2016.  A detailed action plan was also requested that should set out how such problems can be avoided in future. 

France: Action taken: OUI; Action completed: NON; Completion date: 

Les  autorités  françaises  informent  les  services  de  la  Commission  que  les  incohérences  constatées  entre  les  relevés  de 
comptabilité normale et séparée sont liées à l’organisation actuelle du circuit de mise à disposition, particulièrement pour 
ce  qui  concerne  les  mises  à  disposition  faisant  suite  à  rapport  d’inspection  communautaire,  décision  de 
remises/remboursements, admissions en non-valeur ou contestations judiciaires. 

La mise à disposition pour les cas précités n’apparaît pas dans le relevé de comptabilité normale, comme requis par la 
décision 245/97/CE, mais dans les relevés relatifs à la TVA. 

Les autorités françaises précisent que le schéma de mise à disposition fait l’objet d’une réflexion en vue de sa refonte et 
de sa mise en conformité avec la décision précitée. 

Comme évoqué par les services de la Commission, les autorités françaises précisent que, en dépit de cette insuffisance, 
aucun impact sur la fiabilité des montants globaux figurant dans les comptes consolidés de l’Union européenne ne peut 
être constaté. 

Italy: Action taken: YES; Action completed: ; Completion date: 

Lithuania: Action taken: ; Action completed: ; Completion date: 

See comments with regard to observation 3. 

53 

 
 
Figure 4.3 

Paragraph 
4.19 - 
footnote 30 

Annex 4.2  

debt 

recovery 

There  is  no  effective  instrument 
from 
for 
companies registered outside the 
EU or from citizens of countries 
outside the EU. 

The  Commission’s  inspections 
in  Member  States  may  result  in 
the national authorities having to 
take  steps  because  of  non-
compliance  with  EU  customs 
rules.  These  are  known  as  open 
points.  These  open  points  can 
financial 
potential 
have 
impact.  At  the  end  of  2015  a 
total  of  325  points  (see  Figure 
4.2) were open (30). 

a 

(30) 44 points had been open for 
more than five years. The oldest 
points  still  open  dated  back  to 
2002  and  concerned  Germany, 
Greece and Portugal. 

Follow-up 
recommendations for revenue. 

previous 

of 

The  Commission  should  put  in 
place  and  closely  monitor  a 
detailed  action  plan  with  clear 
the 
milestones 
problems  in  the  compilation  of 
Greece’s national accounts. 

address 

to 

Lithuania: Action taken: NO; Action completed: ; Completion date: 

The Lithuanian Customs Service agrees with the ECA auditors’ finding that there is limited scope for recovering debts 
from debtors from non-EU Member States. A detailed answer from the Lithuanian Customs Service on this matter was 
sent to the ECA on 15 March 2016 by letter ref. (13.19/13)3B-2992 from the Customs Department under the Ministry of 
Finance. 

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

Portugal:  Action  taken:  YES;  The  Tax  and  Customs  Authority  is  monitoring  the  situation  regarding  the  open  points 
referred  to  in  the  reports  drawn  up  by  the  Commission  pursuant  to  Article  18  of  Regulation  (EC,  Euratom)  No 
1150/2000. Action completed: NO; The Commission requested additional information on a number of points. Some other 
points  are  being  finalised  and  amounts  have  been  made  available  to  the  Commission  while  awaiting  the  request  for 
payment of the interest due; Completion date: 

Aside from following up the reports on the open points as of 31 December 2015, the Tax and Customs Authority has also 
examined the cases relating to the inspections carried out in 2015 and 2016. 

Greece: Action taken: YES; Action completed: NO; Completion date: In collaboration with Eurostat 

Elstat: Elstat is working with Eurostat concerning the implementation of actions with the aim of continuously improving 
the drafting of the annual and quarterly national accounts. These actions form part of the Joint Overall Statistical Greek 
Action Plan (JOSGAP), which was drawn up in 2010 by the Commission and the Greek authorities. Pillar Β of the action 
plan includes a set of actions relating to strengthening the national accounts.  

One of the actions is to implement a programmes upgrade for the annual national accounts and the upgrading of regional 
and  quarterly  national  accounts,  as  well  as  the  improvement  of  sectoral  accounts.  In  order  to  achieve  the  objective,  a 
series of visits by experts has been organised, in order to provide technical support on the annual and quarterly national 
accounts,  and  further  visits  are  continuing.    Meanwhile,  an  important  factor  contributing  to  the  improvement  of  the 
quality  of  production  is  the  continuing  strengthening  and  training  of  Elstat’s  workforce.  These  staff  members  are 
responsible for the drafting of the national accounts. 

54 

 
 
COM reply 
to Annex 4.2 

The  existing  statistical  action 
plan  for  Greece,  JOSGAP,  will 
be  supplemented  by  a  specific 
plan 
for  National  Accounts 
during 2016. 

Greece: Action taken: YES; Action completed: NO; Completion date: In collaboration with Eurostat 

Elstat: Elstat is working with Eurostat concerning the implementation of actions with the aim of continuously improving 
the drafting of the annual and quarterly national accounts. These actions form part of the Joint Overall Statistical  Greek 
Action Plan (JOSGAP), which was drawn up in 2010 by the Commission and the Greek authorities. Pillar Β of the action 
plan includes a set of actions relating to strengthening the national accounts.  

One of the actions is to implement a programmes upgrade for the annual national accounts and the upgrading of regional 
and quarterly national accounts, as well as the improvement of sectoral accounts. In order to achieve the objective, a 
series of visits by experts has been organised, in order to provide technical support on the annual and quarterly national 
accounts, and further visits are continuing.  Meanwhile, an important factor contributing to the improvement of the 
quality of production is the continuing strengthening and training of Elstat’s workforce. These staff members are 
responsible for the drafting of the national accounts. 

Annex 4.3 

Number  of  outstanding  GNI 
reservations,  VAT  reservations 
and  TOR  open  points  by 
Member State at 31.12.2015. 

Austria: 
a. With regard to VAT 
Action taken: NO; Action completed: NO; Completion date: 
Regarding the 4 VAT reservations: 

OC.1 Other compensation 

COM 
AT 

2004 - 2012 
2004 - 2012 

2004 - 2014 

OC.2 Other compensation 

AT 

2006 - 2010 

2006 - 2010 

Legal issues 

COM 

2010 - 2012 

2010 - 2014 

Sport and cultural services 
(infringement 2007/2453) 
Postal services 
(infringement 2010/2055) 
Travel agents 
(infringement 2012/2124) 

b. With regard to TOR 
Action taken: YES; Action completed: NO; Completion date: 26 January 2016 and 29 January 2016. 

Three open issues were resolved by letters from the Commission dated 26 January 2016 and 29 January 2016. On 7 April 
2016, an opinion was sent to the Commission regarding two open issues. 

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

Réserve 1 : Correction relative aux agriculteurs forfaitaires 

Pour  les  années  2013  et    2014,  tout  comme  pour  le  dossier  2015,  une  nouvelle  méthode  de  calcul  a  été  appliquée  qui 
utilise  les  listings  clients  afin  de  répartir  le  chiffre  d’affaires  et  la  TVA  déductible  entre  d’une  part  les 
agriculteurs/sylviculteurs forfaitaires et d’autre part les agriculteurs/sylviculteurs qui ne relèvent pas de ce système. 

55 

 
 
 
 
La question relative à de plus amples informations concernant les ventes directes et l’autoconsommation des sylviculteurs 
a  été  posée  aux  fédérations  sectorielles,  mais  jusqu’à  présent  celles-ci  n’ont  pas  réagi.  La  question  sera  réitérée  et 
également envoyée aux Régions (qui sont compétentes en matière d’agriculture et de sylviculture). 

Réserve 2 : Exonération de la consommation à bord des moyens de transport 

La problématique juridique sous-jacente remonte déjà en 2009 et a été discutée, dans un contexte plus global, à plusieurs 
reprises  avec  les  Etats  membres  (e.g.  Workshop  Fiscalis  en  2015  à  Ankara)  sans  que  les  services  de  la  Commission 
européenne ont définitivement et clairement arrêté leur position. L’administration fiscale belge insistera dès lors auprès 
des  services  de  la  Commission  européenne  de  clarifier  définitivement  leur  position  juridique  en  la  matière  afin  que  le 
dossier qui fait l’objet d’une réserve au niveau des ressources propres depuis des années peut finalement être clôturé. 

Entretemps,  en  vue  du  calcul  d’une  compensation  éventuelle,  il  ressort  d’études  prospectives  antérieures  que  la 
problématique se limite à une seule entreprise qui est effectivement active sous plusieurs personnalités juridiques (belge 
et autres). L’administration fiscale belge vérifiera, via les bureaux de contrôle compétents, si des informations peuvent 
être collectées permettant d’esquisser une image fiable de l’ampleur de la problématique.  

Réserve 3 : Exonération des activités des administrateurs de sociétés (infraction n° 2014/4123) 

Le régime critiqué par les services de la Commission européenne concernait initialement aussi bien le régime applicable 
aux personnes morales qu’aux personnes physiques. Entretemps, le régime applicable aux personnes morales a été adapté 
conformément  aux  revendications  de  la  Commission  européenne.  Par  contre,  en  ce  qui  concerne  le  régime  TVA 
applicables  aux  administrateurs  personnes  physiques,  l’Etat  belge  maintient  sa  position  que  celui-ci  est  en  conformité 
avec  la  directive  TVA  et  la  jurisprudence  de  la  Cour  de  Justice  de  l’Union  européenne  y  afférente.  La  procédure 
d’infraction est toujours en cours et l’Etat belge continuera à défendre son régime devant les instances européennes. 

Etant donné qu’aucune information n’est disponible dans les bases de données en matière de TVA, une recherche sera 
effectuée dans les données des contributions directes. Il est probable que les informations concernant les administrateurs 
de sociétés ne puissent être trouvées directement dans les déclarations de ces contributions, mais bien, éventuellement, 
dans des fiches qui doivent être utilisées lors du remplissage de la déclaration. La question de savoir sous quelle forme et 
dans quelle mesure ces informations sont tenues à jour dans les bases de données du SPF Finances est encore incertaine. 

Réserve 4 : Groupement TVA (Associations de frais) (EU-Pilot n° 6781/14) 

Il sera examiné dans quelle mesure il est possible d’identifier ces associations et leur chiffre d’affaires. Depuis 2002, ces 
associations  ne  sont  plus  identifiées  en  tant  que  telles  dans  les  bases  de  données  du  SPF  Finances.  En  raison  d’une 
modification législative, elles devront toutefois se faire connaître auprès de l’administration fiscale à partir de 2016. 

-Report 9.0.2: payment made so report closed (shortcoming in ‘B’ account) 

-Report 10.0.2 : payment made so report closed (shortcoming in ‘B’ account) 

-Report  11.0.1:  report  closed  following  the  National  Forum's  'Globalisation’  sub-working  group  report  (commissioned 

56 

 
 
from  IBM,  due  for  completion  by  2017)  and  introduced  in  light  of  the  new  UCC.    The  topic  can  be  re-examined  in 
RTO/AEO audits. 

-Report 11.0.2: payment made so report closed (shortcoming in ‘B’ account) 

-Report 13.0.1 (4 points still outstanding):  

* investigation of ED still ongoing  

* Recovery of duplicate entries audited by Deloitte at the request of the Commission; the Commission also verified this 
external report and issued a mandate for it to proceed with recovery. 

* AAD&A submits half-yearly progress reports on the PLDA action plan. 

* AAD&A submits half-yearly progress reports on the internal audit and audit of working procedures within the Single 
Office/BUEK. 

* The other points have been concluded. 

- Report 13.0.2 concluded by the Commission on 1/7/2016. 

-  Report  14.0.1,  14.0.2,  15.0.1  and  16.0.1  received  and  the  reactions  to  the  recommendations  forwarded  to  the 
Commission.  We await their replies. 

* Report 14.0.1: 9 recommendations remain outstanding pending the Commission’s reaction to our replies. 

* Report 14.0.2 (audit in February 2015): 11 recommendations remain outstanding pending the Commission’s reaction to 
our replies. 

*  Report  15.0.1  (audit  in  October  2015,  report  received  in  January  2016):  14  recommendations  remain  outstanding 
pending the Commission’s reaction to our replies. 

* Report 16.0.1 (audit in March 2016): 14 recommendations remain outstanding pending the Commission’s reaction to 
our replies. 

* Report 16.0.2 (audit in October 2016): report not yet received. 

Bulgaria: Action taken: YES; Action completed: YES; Completion date: 31 December 2015 for NRA and 2016 for the 
Customs Agency 

NRA: Bulgarian authorities — NRA, NSI and MF — have taken action for reducing the number of VAT reservations. As 
a  result,  during  the  inspection  carried  out  by  representatives  of  the  EC  at  the  beginning  of  2015,  2  VAT  reservations 
remained, and 5 reservations were lifted. The Bulgarian authorities expect that during the inspection expected in 2017 the 
existing reservations will be further reduced and the ultimate goal is for all VAT-based reservations to be lifted. Customs 
Agency:  

57 

 
 
The number of the TOR open points for Bulgaria as of 31 December 2015 was four. Of these: 

- Two were related to sections 3.1 and 3.3 of report No 14-26-1 of the EC, and in relation to them in 2016 the Bulgarian 
customs authorities submitted the following opinions: 

- regarding  the follow-up on section  3.3 (a) of report  No  14-26-1: with letter to the Ministry of Finance (MF)  No 32-
53467 of 25 February 2016; 

- regarding the interest calculated under section 3.1: with letter to the MF No 32-58012 of 1 March 2016; 

- regarding the follow-up on sections 3.1 and 3.3 (a) and (b) of report No 14-26-1: with letter to the MF No 32-114410 of 
16 May 2016; 

- regarding the follow-up on section 3.1 of report No 14-26-1: with letter to the MF No 32-149724 of 1 June 2016. 

     2.   Two were related to sections 3.1 and 3.2 of Report No 15-26-1 of the EC. After the submission of the opinion of 
the  Bulgarian  customs  authorities,  they  were  closed  with  letter  from  the  EC  No  BUDG/B/03TE  (2016)  4057984  of  2 
August 2016. Commission Services have decided to complete the work on report No 15-26-1. 

NSI: Bulgaria submits to the Commission (Eurostat) on a regular basis (by 22 September each year), in the context of the 
national accounting procedures, figures for aggregate GNI and its components, and a report on the quality of the data in 
accordance with Article 2(2) of Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1287/2003 of 15 July 2003 on the harmonisation 
of  gross  national  income  at  market  prices.  Each  year  during  the  GNI  Committee  meeting  in  October,  Member  States 
confirm  the  data  and  the  report  on  the  quality  of  data  containing  basic  information  on  data  provided,  submitted  in 
September, any changes in the sources and methods for compiling the data in the national accounts, and any changes in 
the data revision policy. 

During  the  Commission  missions  recommendations  and  reservations  were  made  with  regard  to  the  GNI  data  for  the 
period 2007—2010. In January 2013, after the completion of the Eurostat verification mechanism, an official letter from 
the  Commission  was  received  containing  information  regarding  the  problem  areas  and  GNI  data  reservations  for 
Bulgaria.  Activities  had  to  be  implemented  relating  to  the  following:  review  of  the  methods  for  completeness  of  data; 
improvements in the method for calculating the indirectly measured housing services, consumption of fixed capital, gross 
fixed  capital  formation,  an  alternative  method  of  calculation  of  output  and  intermediate  consumption  in  construction 
services, compensation of employees to and from the institutional sector ‘Rest of World’, production and allocation of 
financial intermediation services indirectly measured, and implementation of adjustments for illegal activities. The work 
on all GNI data reservations was completed, and the last outstanding data reservation was accepted by Eurostat in 2016. 

Croatia:  

3.1.3. Action taken: YES; Action completed: YES; Completion date: 9.10.2015 

Instruction 24/15 in HR and EN was sent to BUDG-Mailbox-B03@ec.europa.eu on 13 October 2015. 

58 

 
 
3.2.3. Action taken: YES; Action completed: YES; Completion date: 29.09.2016 

A report on the Pilot project concerning the A & B accounts in 2016 was sent to BUDG-Mailbox-B03@ec.europa.eu on 
29 September 2016. The report explains the sampling method in detail. 

3.3.3. Action taken: YES; Action completed: YES; Completion date: 29.09.2016 

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

Up to 31 December 2015 there were no reservations pending concerning VAT own resources. Therefore no action was 
taken to lift reservations. From 24 to 27 June 2014 a team of auditors from the European Commission’s DG Budget (DG 
Budget)  and  Eurostat  (ESTAT)  conducted  an  inspection  of  VAT  Own  Resources  bases  for  the  years  2011-2012.  No 
reservations were raised after the inspection. Please note that the four reservations previously pending were lifted after an 
inspection of the VAT own resources bases for the years 2008-2010 carried out in 2012 by a team of auditors from the 
European Commission.  

Czech Republic: Action taken: NO; Action completed: NO; Completion date: 

All three open reservations are currently still at the stage of communication with the Commission and therefore it was not 
possible to take any action. One of the reservations was conditionally paid by the Member State because the Commission 
removed the interest. 

Denmark: Action taken: YES; Action completed: NO ; Completion date: 

The 16 open items concerning traditional own resources are described below. 

As of 31 December 2015, 16 open items were recorded in six inspection reports. We inform you of the following in that 
regard. 

Inspection report 2009-1-1 on inspection of own resources concerning transit and TIR 

The open item in this report concerned information to be supplied to the Commission on two legal cases. 

1. 
 

Item 3.1 BII. Two test cases. 
Denmark considers this item to have been closed by letter ref. 15-001195 of 13 May 2016 from SKAT. 

Inspection report 2011-1-1 on inspection of own resources concerning the local clearance procedure (import) 

Two items in this inspection report remained open as of 31 December 2015. 

1. 
Item 3.2. Insufficient information in the notifications under the local clearance procedure 
 
Open. By letter of 4 May 2016 SKAT informed the Commission that the planned changes to the manifest system 
would  be  implemented  no  later  than  1  September  2016.  An  e-mail  of  24  November  2016  from  the  process  owner 
indicated that there had been a delay. The supplier could not include the update in the last release, as planned, but only in 

59 

 
 
Item  3.3.  Weaknesses  in  the  risk  management  strategy  for  compliance  in  relation  to  the  local  clearance 

the November 2016 release, which is why the Commission has not yet received any information. The Commission will 
be informed as soon as the change is made. 
2. 
procedure 
 
Denmark considers this item to have been closed by the letter of 4 May 2016 to the Commission, in which SKAT 
confirmed the establishment of a nationwide operational task as of 1 April 2015 covering financial processes, including 
end-use and the local clearance procedure. 

Inspection report 2011-1-2 on inspection of own resources: repayment, remission and non-recovery of duties 

Two items in this inspection report remained open as of 31 December 2015. They are: 

Item 3.1. Identifying the population of repayments and remissions and the impact on financial reporting 
Denmark considers this item to be closed. Ref. 14-4987109 – see letter of 20 May 2015. 
Item 3.2.5. Failure to comply with the statutory procedure for remissions and payments 
Denmark  considers  this  item  to  have  been  closed  by  the  Commission  letter  of  21 December  2015  and  by  the 

1. 
 
2. 
 
settlement of the interest on late payment for items 3.1.3.3 and 3.1.3.4 in April 2016. 

Inspection report 2012-1-1 on inspection of own resources concerning anti-dumping measures 

Two items were open in this inspection report as of 31 December 2015. On 23 May 2016 SKAT sent the Commission 
reply ref. 14-0558293 concerning items 3.1b and 3.2. 

1. Item 3.1b Unsatisfactory use of registration procedures  

Denmark considers this item to have been closed by the letter of 23 May 2016 from SKAT to DG Budget. There 

 
is nothing to add about the case concerning footwear from Macao. 

2. Item 3.2. Level of RIF risk information in risk analyses and checks during clearance 

 
Denmark considers this item to have been closed by the letter of 23 May 2016 from SKAT to DG Budget. COM 
inquired  about  the  TARIC  codes  the  Danish  authorities  had  chosen  for  verification  and  the  code  for  exempted  or 
privileged importers. 

Inspection report 2013-1-1 on inspection of own resources – investigation of the reliability of the A and B accounts 2012 

Four items were open in this report as of 31 December 2015. 

Item 3.1. No assessment of liability for amounts written-off 
Denmark considers this item to be closed, ref. 16-0214618. In the letter dated 21 March 2016 SKAT explained 

1. 
 
its actions to DG Budget. 
2. 

Item 3.2. Errors in updating the B account 

60 

 
 
 
Open. SKAT replied to this by letter of 21 March 2016 to DG Budget (ref. 16- 0214618) and by letter of 22 May 

Item 3.4. Administrative error leading to remission 
Denmark  considers  the  item  to  be  closed.  SKAT  explained  the  case  in  its  letter  ref.  16-0214618  of  21  March 

 
2016. A ruling by the Eastern High Court is pending. 
3. 
 
2016. Interest on late payment will be settled for April 2016. 
4. 
Item 3.5. Various problems with cases of repayment 
 
Open. SKAT explained the case by letters of 30 May 2016 and 21 March  2016.  Reply to  DG Budget  ref. 16-
0214618. Not closed, since no letter has been received from the Commission. 

Inspection report 2014-1-1 on inspection of own resources – end-use procedure 

The report was issued in January 2015. Five items were open as of 31 December 2015. They were 3.1, 3.2, 3.3, 3.4 and 
3.5. They are now closed. 

Item 3.2. Lack of checks during clearance and lack of monitoring of the assignment of goods to the prescribed 

Item  3.1.  Shortcomings  as  regards  single  end-use  authorisations  and  those  that  apply  at  the  time  of  customs 

1. 
clearance 
 
SKAT  considers  this  item  to  have  been  closed  by  letter  ref.  16-0472223  of  30 May 2016  to  the  Commission. 
SKAT found no errors in the material submitted, which is why the company was not asked to submit further material, 
since the missing digit is the reason why it was not possible to mention the goods on the permanent authorisation. 
2. 
end-use, or of other customs supervision measures 
 
SKAT considers this item to have been closed by letter ref. 16-0472223 of 30 May 2016 to the Commission. The 
Commission  requested  additional  information  in  the  form  of  a  consolidated  spreadsheet  containing  the  necessary 
information  for  each  of  the  34  customs  declarations  –  the  declaration,  date  of approval,  recorded  amounts,  accounting 
and settlement date, etc. SKAT has prepared a spreadsheet for the declarations. 
3. 
Item 3.3. Goods potentially cleared for end-use without authorisation owing to flaws in the IT-system  
 
SKAT considers this item to have been closed by letter ref. 16-0472223 of 30 May 2016 to the Commission. The 
Commission requested additional information concerning the IT application and an explanation of the incident. It asked 
to  be  provided  with  the  results  for  the  25 single  declarations  released  without  formal  approval.  The  results  were 
submitted to the Commission on 30 May 2016. 
4. 
SKAT  considers  this  item  to  have  been  closed  by  letter  ref.  16-0472223  of  30 May 2016  to  the  Commission.  The 
Commission asked SKAT to confirm that it had declared or deemed the amount of DKK 294 385.04 irrecoverable, and 
that  it  had  thus  already  removed  it,  or  would  remove  it,  from  the  B  account,  in  accordance  with  Article 17(2)  of 
Regulation  1150/2000.  In  this  regard,  SKAT  would  report  that  on  11 May  2015  it  sent  a  letter  to  the  Commission 
explaining  that  the  amount  in  question  had  been  placed  in  the  wrong  column  of  the  A account  for  January  2015.  The 
letter  is  enclosed  as  Annex  3  to  the  letter  of  30  May  2016  from  SKAT.  Interest  on  late  payment  was  settled  on 
24 November 2016, ref. 15-0586782, DKK 7 546.75. Item 3.4.3. See Annex attached. 

Item 3.4. Cases of financial liability relating to end-use 

61 

 
 
5. 
 

Item 3.5. Problems with end-use for particular goods 
Closed by the Commission in letter ref.16-0472223 of 3 February 2016. 

VAT reservations: 

One  reservation  was  open  concerning  business  purchases  of  passenger  cars,  and  two  reservations  concerning  different 
aspects of passenger transport, one of which was entered by Denmark. Denmark has sent the Commission documentation 
concerning all three reservations, and they are expected to be examined in connection with the Commission’s audit visit 
to Denmark in 2017. 

Estonia: Action taken: YES; Action completed: YES; Completion date: As at November 2016, this has been partially 
resolved. As far as the rest is concerned, please see ‘Any other comment’. 

VAT base, item 4.2 ‘Passenger transport’. The reservation covering the years 2007–2014 will remain valid until the legal 
situation becomes clear;  

TOR items 3.1a and 3.1b ‘Cases of potential financial responsibility’ – we will resolve these in December 2016; item 3.3 
‘Guarantee management’ was resolved in February 2016. 

Finland: Action taken: YES; Action completed: NO; Completion date: 

As regards the 10 open findings related to traditional own resources, the Member State has taken corrective measures and 
is working to resolve these points. 

As  regards  VAT  reservations,  an  inspection  was  carried  out  in  October  2015,  and  as  a  result  the  number  of  VAT 
reservations decreased to three in 2016. 

France:  Action  taken:  OUI;  Action  completed:  OUI/NON;  Completion  date:  au  fur  et  à  mesure,  au  gré  des  échanges 
entre  les  autorités  françaises  et  les  services  de  la  Commission  (DG  Budget).  Certains  points  sont  déjà  clos  tandis  que 
d’autres nécessitent encore un suivi tant de la part des autorités françaises que des services de la Commission s’agissant 
des ressources propres traditionnelles (RPT).  

S’agissant de la TVA, après la visite d’inspection de la Commission européenne de décembre 2015, trois réserves sur la 
déclaration  ressource  propre  TVA  demeurent :  une  réserve  2012-2014  sur  la  compensation  'XB.8  fourniture  d'eau 
publique'  relative  à  l'amélioration  de  la  méthode  concernée,  une  réserve  2008-2014  relative  à  l'infraction  2011-2015 
(transport de biens entre la France continentale et la Corse) et une réserve 2011-2014 relative à l'infraction 2015/4135 
(services rendus aux particuliers par les associations sans but lucratif).  

S’agissant des RPT, le nombre de points ouverts concernant les RPT au 31/12/2015 : 

- sur  la base des courriers  de la  DG  Budget  adressés aux autorités françaises en  2015, le nombre de points ouverts 
concernant les RPT au 31/12/2015 décompté par ces dernières s’élève à 35 (contre 43 au 01/01/2015). Ce chiffre est 
le résultat du solde des points clos (8 en 2015) et de points nouveaux (6 dans le rapport de contrôle n° 15-5-1) ; 

62 

 
 
- à la date de rédaction de la présente réponse des autorités françaises, ce nombre a été rapporté à 27 puisque 12 points 
ont été clos en 2016 (ce décompte ne tenant pas compte des clôtures partielles qui viennent toutefois s’ajouter au 
contingent  de  clôtures  et  témoignent  de  la  dynamique  des  échanges  entre  la  Commission  et  la  France  et  des 
diligences des autorités françaises pour répondre de manière satisfaisante aux recommandations et aux requêtes de la 
Commission) quand 4 nouveaux points sont apparus avec le rapport n° 16-5-1. 

De plus, comme indiqué en 2015 en réponse aux observations de la Cour dans son rapport annuel relatif à l’exécution du 
budget 2014, un grand nombre de points ouverts concerne des dossiers individuels relatifs à des montants inscrits en ou 
retirés de la comptabilité séparée – B. Ils sont clos au gré des mises à disposition des montants principaux éventuellement 
dus  et  des  intérêts  de  retard  exigibles,  le  cas  échéant,  à  la  demande  exclusive  des  services  de  la  Commission  (DG 
Budget). 

Par ailleurs, l’évocation de clôtures de points en cascade (2 ont bien été réalisées concernant le rapport n° 14-5-2) dans la 
réponse des autorités françaises susmentionnée a effectivement conduit à la clôture annoncée de 8 autres points, induisant 
la clôture complète de 2 rapports de contrôle (n° 09-5-2 et n° 10-5-2). 
S’agissant des plus anciens rapports (06-5-1 et 10-5-1), les autorités françaises sont dans l’attente de la communication 
de  montants  d’intérêts  de  retard  qui,  une  fois  mis  à  disposition,  devraient  également  venir  clore  ces  points  qui  sont 
également corrélés entre eux (dernier point du rapport n° 06-5-1 (n° 3.3) traité en réalité dans le cadre du suivi du point 
n° 3.3 du rapport n° 10-5-1). 

En  outre,  les  autorités  françaises  souhaitent  souligner  le  fait  qu’elles  suivent  le  traitement  des  points  ouverts  avec 
méthode et rigueur, dans le respect des délais fixés par la réglementation et que les raisons du maintien de certains points 
ouverts ne peut en aucun cas être imputé à un quelconque manque de diligence de leur part mais sont à rechercher dans la 
nature  même  des  requêtes  et  recommandations  formulées  (demandes  de  réalisation  d’enquêtes  au  périmètre  très  large 
(national  et  pluriannuel),  demandes  de  refonte  d’instructions  nationales  dans  le  contexte  de  changement  de  bases 
réglementaires (caducité du code des douanes communautaire – CDC – avec entrée en application du nouveau code des 
douanes de l’Union – CDU), etc.). 

Enfin, sur les mesures prises, compte tenu de ce qui précède, les autorités françaises considèrent qu’elles les prennent de 
manière  continue  dans  le  suivi  qu’elles  assurent  de  ces  points  ouverts ;  sur  l’état  d’achèvement  des  actions  prises, 
s’agissant de mesures continues, elles ne peuvent connaître de date d’achèvement ; elles sont donc considérées comme 
achevées au gré de leur exécution. 

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

Greece: Action taken: YES; Action completed: NO; Completion date: 

Ministry of the Economy – Directorate for Implementation of Indirect Taxation: During the audit that is to be carried out 
in our country by the European Commission’s employees (auditors), from 12 to 16 December 2016, relating to VAT, the 

63 

 
 
 
 
likelihood is that the reservations will be reduced.   

Elstat:  Throughout  2015  and  up  until  July  2016  Elstat  applied  a  detailed  programme  of  work  and  actions  in  order  to 
achieve the lifting of GNI/GDP reservations. During this programme Elstat worked intensively to resolve the issues that 
were linked to the reservations and submitted the data and documentation requested by Eurostat during 2015 and 2016.  

Moreover, Elstat cooperated with Eurostat on addressing the reservations. In 2015 Eurostat made two visits to Elstat (in 
June and December), while in 2016 it made one visit (in May 2016).  

During these visits direct verification was carried out on Elstat’s work, with the objective of lifting the reservations.  

In addition, in September 2016 the data and documentation for the years 2002-2009 were sent, in accordance with the 
requirements of the programme for forwarding the 2016 GNI questionnaire. 

We  are  waiting  for  a  technical  opinion  to  be  drafted,  so  that  all  the  reservations  may  be  lifted  except  reservation  6, 
relating to the use of balance of payments data for shipping and marine transport, which must be re-examined, with the 
results  being  revised  where  necessary  (for  the  years  2002-2010  and  the  reservation  relating  to  FISIM  (Financial 
Intermediation Services Ιndirectly Μeasured).  

In order to address reservation 6, Elstat and the Bank of Greece are working together and each body has drafted an action 
plan, setting out plans to conduct joint work, and to exchange technical expertise and information. Both the action plans 
have the same objective, of drawing up and keeping a statistical register of shipping enterprises and vessels, following 
close cooperation between the two bodies. The register will be kept by each body for its own needs, as deriving from the 
annual work programme, and it will be made public on a regular basis, in accordance with harmonised procedures which 
will be the subject of collaboration between Elstat and the Bank of Greece, at the technical level. 

An important aim of the action plans of both bodies is the creation of a joint working group involving representatives of 
senior management from Elstat and the Bank of Greece. There is a commitment to setting up this group, pursuant to the 
agreement of 27 July 2016 between the President of Elstat and the Director of the Bank of Greece, and the letter on the 
subject by the President of Elstat to the Director of the Bank of Greece, after which the settlement of individual matters 
relating to the cooperation in question is imminent. 

The  objective  aim  of  the  working  group  is  to  evaluate  the  consistency  of  the  two  registers  and,  by  extension,  of  the 
information produced. 

In  order  to  address  the  reservation  relating  to  FISIM,  since  May  2015  and  throughout  2016  Elstat  has  been  working 
together 
Elstat  
has submitted the data requested by Eurostat. Eurostat is in the process of examining the data. 

Eurostat. 

with 

Hungary: Action taken: YES; Action completed: ; Completion date: Continuous 

The Hungarian authorities are cooperating with the Commission’s departments to overcome any reservations. 

64 

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

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

Outcome 
after 
document 

this 

Maintained 
with  reduced 
scope 

Maintained 

Current State of Play 2016 

Expected  to  be  lifted  following  our  recent  EU  Audit  in 
September 2016 

Expected  to be  maintained  post audit but  with  a  largely 
reduced  scope.  Aiming  to have  reservation lifted  by  the 
next submission of the VATOR account in 2017 

Reservation 

Description 

Correction 
for 
flat rate farmers 

Weighted 
average rate 

Recording 
Training”, 
goods” 
Costs” in 2010-2012 

“Research 

of 
“Teagasc”, 

and 
“Other 
“Other  Overhead 

and 

local 

authorities’ 
Taxation  of 
services;  expenditure  on 
travel 
agents  and  tour  operators  in  PCE; 
travel  agent’s  margin  and  IC  of 
travel  agents  as  non-deductible 
VAT;  incorrect  links;  IC  of  other 
exempt  sectors  and  cars;  taxable 
entertainment  services  and  IC  of 
theatres;  allocation  of  IC  products 
to  the  correct  VAT  rate  when 
NACE Rev.2 is used; IC of primary 
education;  GFCF;  consistency  with 
the  compensations  for  small  firms, 
cars and fuel. 

Compensation 
for 
small firms 

exempt 

Provision  of  supporting  document; 
evidence 
competitive 
environment;  update  of  the  WAR; 
removal  of  rounding  and  check  of 

of 

Maintained  Maintained. A new methodology is going to be used for 
this calculation in 2017 and this should allow us to have 
this reservation lifted. 

65 

 
 
 
 
 
 
index 2010 

Provision of supporting documents; 
removal  of  all 
rounding  and 
inclusion of formulas; estimation of 
certain  shares, 
justification 
and possible update; and removal of 
the deduction for taxis 

their 

Maintained 

Expected to be lifted following a joint effort by the CSO, 
Revenue Commissioner and the EU auditors to get to the 
the  underlying 
bottom  of 
assumptions. 

the  calculations  and 

Exemption  of  compensation  on 
board of ships or aircraft 

Maintained 

Expected to be lifted following an assessment of the Irish 
legislation  where  we  feel  we  are  entitled  to  this 
exemption. 

Funds management services 

(EU Pilot 2788/11) 

Maintained  Will  be  Maintained  and  a  joint  effort  will  be  made  by 
Revenue  and  the  CSO  to  try  and  lift  this  reservation 
before the next EU control visit. 

Compensation 
for cars 

Other 
compensation 

Other 
compensation 

The  GNI  reservation  relates  to  FISIM  (financial  intermediation  services  indirectly  measured).  We  sent  Eurostat  our 
revised methodology in February 2016 and got confirmation last month from the desk officer adjudicating on FISIM that 
they approved of the use of new data sources and that the methodology meets the ESA requirements. A formal lifting of 
the reservation was pending until the new FISIM data was identified and explained in the annual GNI transmission (on 
22 September 2016). This transmission included the detail of the GNI estimates for all years back to 2010, prepared for 
our annual National Income and Expenditure (NIE) publication. 

Eurostat has subsequently prepared what it calls its technical opinion which will be sent to Ireland's Perm Rep to the EU, 
confirming that the reservation has been lifted. 

Regarding  the  TOR  open  points,  Revenue  has  noted  with  interest  the  Court  of  Auditors  observations  in  relation  to 
Traditional  Own  Resources.  The  8  items  shown  in  Annex  4.3  relate  to  ‘open  points’  of  reports,  and  not  to 
reservations.  They are points of inspections reports which were open at 31.12.2015 and form part of the regular ongoing 
follow-up procedure of such reports. A number of these ‘open points’ have been dealt with since that date.  

 
2011 inspection – A follow up report was received from DG BUDGET in Sept 2015. Three ‘open points’ remain. 
Two of the remaining open points relate to the charging of late payment interest. They will be closed once this interest 

66 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
has been paid. We are currently awaiting information from DG BUDGET on the exact amount involved. These amounts 
will be paid after the amounts requested are verified. It is also hoped that the third ‘open point’ will also be closed once 
Ireland have provided clarification to DG BUDGET on the matter. 

2013 inspection – There were five ‘open points’ associated with this inspection. Ireland provided a response to 

 
DG BUDGET on these in early 2015. 

Italy: 

GNI reservations 

Measure adopted: YES; Action completed: YES;  Completion date: 11/12/2015 

VAT reservations 

Measure adopted: YES; Action completed: YES; Completion date: 9/12/2015   

In  October  2014  inspectors  from  the  European  Commission  visited  the  Italian  authorities  to  examine  the  annual  VAT 
statements  for  2011,  2012  and  2013.  In  the  course  of  2015  the  Italian  authorities  sent  the  Commission  the  documents 
relating to the recalculations and corrections requested by the inspectors as part of their control visit. The audit resulted in 
a document dated December 2015 summarising the situation in Italy following the inspection.  

Before the inspection the Commission had 8 reservations and the Italian authorities 3. Thanks to the work carried out by 
Italy in the course of 2015, the number of Commission reservations was reduced to 4, plus 2 on the Italian side. Of the 4 
reservations on the Commission’s side, 2 related to the VAT receipts and are deemed to be long-standing. 

In September 2015 the European Commission carried out an additional audit of the Italian authorities relating to the 2 
reservations  regarding  VAT  receipts  (accounting  adjustments  in  1999-2003  and  the  reconciliation  of  refunds  in  2006-
2013). This, and the positive outcome of a special audit carried out by the Italian Court of Audit in 2015, succeeded in 
definitively 
the 
European Commission’s summary document of 1 June 2016 (Ref. Ares(2016)2534376). 

long-standing  reservations.  Confirmation  of 

this  result  can  be  found 

lifting 

two 

the 

in 

There  are  therefore  2  outstanding  reservations  (‘compensation  on  existing  buildings  and  building  land’  and  ‘on-going 
infringement case no 2008/2010’) which will be addressed at the next control visit, planned for December 2016. 

Latvia: Action taken: YES; Action completed: ; Completion date: 

GNI: Intensive efforts continued in 2016 to enable the remaining GNI reservations to be lifted as soon as possible. The 
2015 GNI questionnaire included the results of work on specific GNI reservations and cross-cutting issues (impact on the 
volume  of  GNI),  and  the  quality  report  also  provided  a  description  of  the  work  done  on  GNI  reservations.  Eurostat 
visited Latvia on 24–25 November 2015 (GNI information visit) to discuss open issues concerning the remaining GNI 
reservations. With further clarifications being provided after this visit, all necessary steps were taken to enable most of 
the remaining reservations to be lifted. 13 April 2016 saw the lifting of nine of the twelve remaining reservations (as they 

67 

 
 
stood at 31 December 2015). Three reservations are still in force in 2016. These are interconnected and therefore can all 
be  lifted  simultaneously,  but  only  when  all  the  interconnected  methodological  requirements  have  been  met.  The  2016 
GNI questionnaire included the results of work on the remaining GNI reservations (impact on the volume of GNI), and 
the quality report also provided a description of the work done on GNI reservations. The Central Statistical Board has 
therefore  now  applied  all  the  necessary  revisions  to  GNI  data  and  has  submitted  all  the  necessary  documentation  for 
lifting  these  reservations.  Further  progress  is  dependent  on  how  quickly  Eurostat  prepares  all  the  necessary 
documentation in order to officially lift the three remaining reservations. 

TOR:  Completion  date:  24 August 2016.  In  accordance  with 
letter  ref.  BUDG/B/03/CT(2016)4764257  of 
24 August 2016  on  the  follow-up  to  the  TOR  inspection,  report  item  3.1  on  partial  compliance  with  Article  17(2)  of 
Regulation  No  1150/2000  will  be  closed  following  calculation  and  settlement  of  late-payment  interest,  while  item  3.2 
regarding potential financial liability of the Member State was closed on 24 August 2016. 

VAT: Completion date: 30 November 2015. The question of whether VAT exemption for accommodation management 
services  is  in  compliance  with  the  provisions  of  Council  Directive  2006/112/EC  of  28 November  2006  (the  VAT 
Directive) was raised within the context of the EU Pilot 6103/14/TAXU procedure. The Commission's services sent their 
first request for information to the competent Latvian authorities on 11 February 2014, to which the Latvian authorities 
replied  on  22 April 2014.  Following  receipt  of  this  response,  on  8 July 2014  the  Commission's  services  sent  a  further 
request for information, to which the Latvian authorities replied on 6 August 2014. On 26 November 2014 the Latvian 
authorities received the Commission's letter of formal notice in infringement proceedings 2014/2233. 

The  letter  setting  out  Latvia's  position  in  response  to  the  Commission's  letter  of  formal  notice  in  these  infringement 
proceedings stated that, with a view to rectifying the infringement identified by the Commission and correctly applying 
the  provisions  of  the  VAT  Directive,  Latvia  will  amend  the  Value  Added  Tax  Law  by  deleting  Article  52(1)(25)(b), 
which provides for VAT exemption for accommodation management services. 

In order to harmonise the Law on VAT with Directive 2006/112/EC and to implement the obligations placed on Latvia 
under  Directive  2006/112/EC  to  prevent  the  inappropriate  application  of  EU  legislation,  on  30 November  2015 
amendments were adopted to the VAT Law, whereby from 1 July 2016 management services for dwellings provided to 
tenants are subject to the 21 % standard rate of VAT.  

Lithuania: Action taken: YES; Action completed: YES; Completion date: 16/2/2016 

These observations by the European Commission, which were open on 31 December 2015, were resolved in 2016. 

1)  The  observations  made  in  points  3.1  and  3.2  of  the  European  Commission’s  Report  No  11-20-1  of  9  January 
2012 on the inspection of traditional own resources in Lithuania from 3 to 7 October 2011 were closed on 16 February 
2016 by letter ref. BUDG/B/03/KV (2016) 808166 from the European Commission. 

68 

 
 
 
 
The  observation  made  in  point  3.1  of  the  European  Commission’s  Report  No 14-20-1  of  5  September  2014  on  the 
inspection of traditional own resources in Lithuania from 16 to 20 June 2014 was closed on 1 February 2016 by letter 
ref. BUDG/B/03/MK/ D(2016) 528319 from the European Commission. 

Luxembourg: Réserves TVA: Action taken: OUI; Action completed: NON; Completion date: entre 29/10/2016 et 
29/12/2016 (2 réserves TVA). Réserves RNB:  Action taken: OUI; Action completed: OUI; Completion date: 17/12/2015. 
Réserves RPT:  Action taken: OUI; Action completed: NON; Completion date:.  

Réserves TVA 

Suite  au  contrôle  ressources  propres  TVA  effectué  en  septembre  par  la  DGBUDG,  il  est  à  prévoir  que  deux  des  trois 
réserves actuelles pourront être levées avant la fin de l'année. La troisième réserve est liée à une affaire pendante devant 
le CJUE (C-274/15 Commission c. Luxembourg). Aucune action n'est prévue en 2016 en ce qui concerne la réserve liée à 
l'affaire C-274/15, pendante devant la CJUE. 

RPT : 

Le 2 mai 2016, une prise de position concernant le point resté ouvert du rapport 13-8-1 a été envoyée à la Commission. 
En attente d’une réponse. 

Réserves RNB 

Dans une lettre adressée à la représentation permanente du Luxembourg auprès de l’UE (BUDG B4/LP/Ares(2015) M. 
Stefan Lehner a informé que toutes les réserves spécifiques et transversales sur le RNB luxembourgeois ont été levées. 
L’information a été transmise au STATEC par Eurostat à la date du 17 décembre 2015. 

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

NSO  addressed  the  outstanding  reservation  in  the  latest  GNI  quality  report  dated  4  October  2016.  Once  official 
confirmation by EUROSTAT is received, the pending reservation will be lifted. 

Fuq “Punti miftuħa” tal-RPT: To date, 2 out of the 4 points have been addressed by the MT Government. 

Netherlands: Action taken: YES; Action completed: NO; Completion date: 

TOR: 3 of the 48  points that remained open on 31-12-2015 have been resolved in 2016. The other points are still the 
subject of correspondence between the Commission and the Netherlands. The points that remained unresolved on 31-12-
2015 are or will be settled in bilateral talks between the European Commission and the Netherlands. In the case of 16 of 
the  48  points  unresolved  on  31-12-2015  the  Netherlands  was  waiting  for  a  reply  or  follow-up  reply  from  the 
Commission.  For  32  of  the  48  open  points  the  onus  was  on  the  Netherlands  to  reply  to  the  Commission.  In  2014  one 
subpart of one of the 48 points was settled. Because the other subparts of the point had not been resolved the entire point 
was still classified as open on 31-12-2015. 

Poland:  Action  taken: YES; Action  completed: NO; Completion  date: In reference to GNI  14/04/2016, in  reference to 

69 

 
 
TZW 14/07/2015 

GNI 

The European Commission notified Polish authorities of its withdrawal of specific reservations 1‒3, 5‒8, 10 and 11 as 
well as horizontal reservations V and VIII related to Poland in its letter of 14 April 2016 (Ref. No: Ares (2016)1766182). 

At the moment there are no reservations related to Poland’s GNI. 

VAT 

Since  the  reservations  referred  to  in  Annex  4.3  in  Chapter  4  may  be  raised  by  Member  States  or  the  European 
Commission in respect of methodology used for calculations or data used for calculations related to establishing a VAT-
based EU own fund basis, and work on resolving issues included therein and subsequent repeal thereof is a continuous 
process that relies on close cooperation between the administration of a Member State and the European Commission, in 
the opinion of Poland, Annex 4.3 should indicate three reservations related to VAT against Poland. 

TOR 

In the observation, the ECA indicated seven open points as at 31 December 2015, while Poland kindly explains that since 
September 2015, it has not been aware of any open point. The circumstances of the case are as follows: having conducted 
on  12–16  November  2012  an  audit  for  the  purposes  of  the  Statement  of  Assurance  for  the  financial  year  2012  (DAS 
2012)  in  respect  of  traditional  own  resources,  the  ECA  made  eight  preliminary  findings  (in  17  points),  which  were 
presented in the letter of 6 February 2013 from the ECA to the Supreme Chamber of Control (NIK) – Ref. No PF-5410. 
Such  preliminary  findings,  replies  of  Polish  authorities,  and  the  ECA’s  letter  with  the  analysis  of  letters  from  Polish 
authorities  were  forwarded  to  the  European  Commission’s  DG Budget,  which  in  its  letter  of  4  September  2015,  No 
3651543  informed  that  in  response  to  the  replies  of  Polish  authorities  (the  last  reply  of  Poland  to  the  European 
Commission  was  included  in  the  letter  of  14  July  2015,  No  DC2.9021.13.2015.PXM),  the  Commission  departments 
regarded preliminary findings sheet PF 5410/12 as closed. 

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

Having examined the remaining open points referred to in the reports drawn up by the Commission pursuant to Article 
18 of Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1150/2000, the Tax and Customs Authority has reached the following conclusions: 

The Authority has drawn up new instructions regarding the accounting treatment to be applied when outstanding 
• 
debt is time-barred.  In accordance with Circular No 15383 of 15 July 2015, amounts must be declared non-recoverable 
once  the  debt  is  time-barred;  the  survey  of  cases  where  the  amounts  were  corrected  because  of  time-barring  has  been 
completed,  and  a  proposal  has  been  made  to  a  higher  level  that  the  amounts  in  question  be  made  available  on  a 
provisional basis. 

The Commission requested additional information about a number of points, and those points are therefore still 

• 
open. 

70 

 
 
• 
There are also a number of cases that are now being finalised, as the amounts in question have already been made 
available to the Commission; in some of these cases, we are waiting to receive the request for payment of the interest 
due. 

• 

The cases relating to the 2015 and 2016 inspections have also been analysed. 

As regards report No 15-10-1, we are awaiting the Commission’s opinion on the reply to letter No 81245 of 7 January 
2015 (two open cases). 

As regards report No 16-10-1, we are awaiting the Commission’s opinion on the reply to letter No 2468575 of 27 May 
2015 (one open case). 

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

As to the GNI-based own resource, on 14 April 2016, as confirmed by COM letter Ref. Ares (2016)1765638/14 April 
2016, all GNI-related reservations have been  lifted. Practically,  one may consider GNI reservations a closed action on 
14.04.2016. The corresponding box was not, however, checked since the table also contained references to the other own 
resources. UCRBUE (Coordinating Unit for Relations with the European Union) 
As to the VAT-based own resource, from the three reservations existing on 31.12.2015, two have been lifted (which is 
confirmed by COM Draft Conclusions No Ref. Ares 2869670 of 21 June 2016) and only the general joint COM  – RO 
reservation regarding the automatic compensation remains in force. UCRBUE + INS (National Institute of Statistics) 
As  to  the  traditional  own  resources,  there  are  16  outstanding  reservations  in  the  inspection  reports  of  the  European 
Commission,  drawn  up  in  the  period  2011-2015,  as  illustrated  in  the  above  table.  General  Customs  Directorate  + 
UCRBUE 

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

Financial  Directorate:  TOR  open  points  as  at  31 December  2015  concern  TOR  inspections  by  the  Commission  (DG 
BUDGET) carried out in 2013 and 2014. The Financial Directorate and DG BUDGET are engaged in correspondence on 
all points in a bid to close those that are open. As at November 2016, all points from the 2013 inspection had been closed, 
and only one point from the 2014 inspection remained, in relation to which further communication is being held between 
the Financial Directorate and DG BUDGET. 

Spain: Action taken: ; Action completed: ; Completion date: 

With regard to the two reservations in VAT resources at 31-12-2015: 

 

the  European  Commission  withdrew  the  reservation  concerning  the  weighted  average  rate  in  its  summary 
document on the inspection visit of 3 May 2016 after receiving the necessary explanations and calculations from 
Spain. 

71 

 
 
 

the second reservation was notified officially to Spain for the first time by the document transmitting the VAT 
inspection  report  for  2012-2013  dated  27  August  2015.  This  reservation  was  the  result  of  infringement 
proceeding No 2015/4105 on the exemption of certain services sold through gift boxes. The Spanish authorities 
are awaiting legal certainty on what the correct VAT treatment of these operations should be in order to assess 
and  quantify a  possible  financial  impact  on  the  contribution  of  the  VAT  own  resource.  This  reservation  is  the 
only one currently in force in the VAT resource for Spain. 

With regard to the reservations concerning Traditional own resources at 31-12-2015: 

Follow-up to the points pending arising from the inspections of traditional own resources is carried out by the European 
Commission (DG Budget) with the Member State in question.’  

Sweden: Action taken: NO; Action completed: ; Completion date: 

This observation does not require Sweden to take action. 

United Kingdom: Action taken: YES; Action completed: YES; Completion date: 
VAT Reservations (situation at 31st December 2015) = 10 
GNI Reservation (situation at 31st December 2015) = 1 

1. Transition from producer's prices to basic prices 

The  compilation  process  to  make  the  transition  from  producer's  prices  to  basic  prices  in  order  to  value  output  in 
accordance with ESA95 should be reviewed. 

The  compilation  process  to  make  the  transition  from  producer's  prices  to  basic  prices  in  order  to  value  output  in 
accordance with ESA95 should be reviewed. Furthermore, the consistency between the scope of taxes and subsidies in 
the aforementioned transition and the scope of taxes and subsidies from the government accounts used in the estimation 
of  GDP  should  be  ensured.  Following  ONS  work  to  remedy  this  incorporated  at  Blue  Book  2016  all  the  outstanding 
gross  national  income  (GNI)  reservations  on  a  European  System  of  Accounts  1995  (ESA  1995)  basis  have  now  been 
lifted.  
VAT Reservations (situation at 31st December 2015) = 10 

Six of the ten reservations were lifted in the Commission’s VAT Base Control Summary Report, issued in July 2016. The 
status of the four remaining reservations is as follows; 

i) 

Gross receipts (period covered: 2012-14) 

Discrepancies in the reconciliation and audit trail exercises were identified during the Commission’s 2015 control visit. 
A methodology for a new and more robust reconciliation has been developed while the audit trail issue is currently under 
investigation. Both topics will be discussed with the Commission during their 2017 control visit. 

72 

 
 
ii) 

Small exempt firms (period covered: 2012-14) 

Justification  of  the  percentage  of  sales  to  final  consumer  and  the  input/output  ratio  is  required.  The  issue  is  currently 
under investigation and is to be revised by April 2017.  

iii) 

Funeral services (period covered: 2012-14) 

Validation of the data used against the underlying data sources is required. The  matter is currently under investigation 
and will be discussed with the Commission during their 2017 control visit.  

iv) 

Car compensation (period covered: 2009-14) 

Validation  of  the  data  used  against  the  underlying  data  sources.  Significant  work  has  been  carried  out  to  improve  and 
simplify the methodology. The matter will be further discussed with the Commission during 2017. 
TOR ‘open points’ (situation at 31st December 2015) = 23 

The UK recognise that a number of points remain outstanding from previous inspections, many of which are complex in 
nature.  The  UK  is  committed  to  resolving  them  and  remains  in  regular  correspondence  with  the  Commission  via  the 
usual channels. 

73 

 
 
 
 
 
CHAPTER 6 – Economic, social and territorial cohesion 

Paragraphs 

Paragraph 
6.3 - footnote 
3 

Observations in the 2015 
Court's Annual Report 

to 

the  MFF 
under 
Spending 
heading  1.b  — 
‘Economic, 
social  and  territorial  cohesion’ 
aims 
reduce  development 
disparities  between  different 
regions,  restructuring  declining 
industrial areas and to encourage 
cross-border,  transnational  and 
(2). 
interregional  cooperation 
instruments 
The  policy 
that 
support 
the  reinforcement  of 
economic  and  social  cohesion 
are the following: 

environment 

- the Cohesion Fund (CF), which 
finances 
and 
transport  projects  in  Member 
States  with  a  per  capita  GNP  of 
less  than  90  %  of  the  EU 
average (3). 

(3)  For  both  2007-2013  and  
2014-2020 
programming 
periods,  CF  concerns  Bulgaria, 
Estonia, 
Republic, 
Czech 
Greece, Croatia, Cyprus, Latvia, 
Lithuania,  Hungary,  Malta, 
Poland,  Portugal,  Romania, 
Slovenia  and  Slovakia.  Spain 
was  eligible  for  CF  transitional 
support  only  during  the  2007-

Member States' replies 

Cyprus: Action taken: ; Action completed: ; Completion date: 

With regard to the Cohesion Fund, Cyprus as a Member State will receive funding:  

- 

- 

for the 2007-2013 MFF in the order of EUR 213 204 484 (amount corresponding to the Community Budget). At 
31 December 2015 funding of EUR 193 108 178 had been received; 

for the 2014-2020 MFF (in accordance with Commission implementing decision C(2014) 10084) in the order of 
EUR 269 541 702. 

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

No comment, no specific finding. 

Estonia: Action taken: YES; Action completed: NO; Completion date: 31/03/2017 

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

Factual finding; no action justified. 

Latvia: Action taken: ; Action completed: ; Completion date: 

No comment - statistical information provided 

Poland: Action taken: ; Action completed: ; Completion date:  

This observation does not include any specific reservations against Poland. 

Portugal: Action taken: ; Action completed: ; Completion date: 

Nothing relevant to report. 

Slovakia: Action taken: ; Action completed: ; Completion date: 

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

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

Slovenia is entitled to the KS funds within the FP 2007-2013 as well as within the FP 2014-2020. Detailed measures for 
the extraction of resources from the stated fund (for transport, environmental and energy infrastructure) are presented in 

74 

 
 
 
 
 
2013 programming period. 

OP ROPI (for the period of 2007-2013), as well as in the OP for the implementation of ECP in the period 2014-2020. 

Paragraph 
6.9(a) - 
footnote 8 

Annex  1.1  sets  out  the  key 
elements  of  our  audit  approach 
and  methodology.  For  the  audit 
of 
and 
the 
territorial 
following  specific  points  should 
be noted: 

‘Economic, 

cohesion’ 

social 

(a)  We  examined  a  sample  of 
223  transactions  (7)  as  defined 
in  Annex  1.1,  paragraph  7.  The 
sample 
to  be 
is  designed 
representative  of  the  range  of 
spending 
the  MFF 
under 
heading.  In  2015,  the  sample 
consisted  of  transactions  from 
15 Member States (8). 

Greece, 

(8)  Bulgaria,  Czech  Republic, 
Germany, 
Spain, 
France,  Italy,  Latvia,  Hungary, 
Portugal, 
Poland, 
Austria, 
Romania,  Slovenia  and  United 
Kingdom (see Annex 1.3). 

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

The CENTRAL EUROPE programme was audited in respect of the ERDF. The beneficiaries of this programme are not 
just in Austria, but also in eight other Member States. There were no financially quantifiable findings in the ECA audit. 

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

No comment, no specific finding. 

France: Action taken: NON; Action completed: NON; Completion date: 

Dans le cadre de la préparation de la déclaration d’assurance relative à l’exercice 2015 (réf. 1999FR053DO001), la Cour 
des comptes européenne a transmis, le 6 avril 2016, ses constatations préliminaires. La France n’a pas encore été rendue 
destinataire des conclusions de cet audit. 

Germany: Action taken: ; Action completed: ; Completion date: 

For information purposes only; no answer required. 

Greece: Action taken: YES; Action completed: NO; Completion date: 31/12/2016 

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

Factual finding; no action justified. 

Latvia: Action taken: YES; Action completed: NO; Completion date: 

The report on Audit No PF-7153 indicated that in one of the four projects checked a number of shortcomings had been 
ascertained relating to State aid (two of the three parts of the observation have been retained: the maximum aid intensity 
has  been  exceeded  and  there  is  no  incentive  effect  that  would  justify  increasing  support  by  10 %).  When  providing 
comments on the draft report, the Latvian authorities set out their arguments and provided supporting documentation, but 
the final audit report still contains the previously drafted findings. Therefore, following consultations with the authorities 
concerned, the ECA will be sent the managing authority’s position on the information contained in the report. Given that 
the  coordination  of  recommendations  made  in  ECA  audits  falls  under  the  remit  of  the  European  Commission,  if 
necessary the information and views collated at national level will also be sent to the European Commission. 

Poland: Action taken: ; Action completed: ; Completion date:  

This observation does not include any specific reservations against Poland. 

Portugal: Action taken: ; Action completed: ; Completion date: 

Nothing relevant to report. 

75 

 
 
Romania: Action taken: ; Action completed: ; Completion date: 

AA (Audit Authority): Regarding the Commission’s supervisory activities of audit authorities in the Member States, we 
specify  that,  between  09  November  2015  and  13  November  2015,  European  Commission  auditors  from  DG  REGIO 
carried out an audit mission at the office of the Audit Authority, the aim of which was to obtain reasonable assurance that 
the activity of the audit authority complied with the requirements of Council Regulation (EC) No 1083/06, particularly 
those under Article 62.1.(b) - Audit of operations. Furthermore, the auditors assessed the reliability of the results of the 
audit activity, presented in the annual control reports and in the annual opinions. 

The  scope  of  the  audit  covered  the  programmes  Regional  Operational  Programme,  Sectoral  Operational  Programme 
Increase  of  Economic  Competitiveness,  Sectoral  Operational  Programme  Transport,  Sectoral  Operational  Programme 
Environment, Operational Programme for Cross-Border Co-operation between Romania and Bulgaria. 

Up to the date of this document, no final audit report has been issued, the provisional conclusion being, pursuant to the 
draft audit report, that, as far as Key Requirement No 3 (Adequate procedures for audits of operations) is concerned, the 
system works, but some improvements are needed (Category 2). 

Slovenia: Action taken: ; Action completed: ; Completion date: 

Slovenia or the MA has no other comment to ECP Goal 1, also no aditional comment to the scope of audits, carried out 
by the ECA, nor to the audit procedure and approach, whereabout the MA has no detailed knowledge. However, it is not 
within the competence of MA to comment on the correctness of the data; e.g. information about the size of the sample of 
the selected transactions and/or to which Member States these samples would reffer. In so far the EC requires a different 
response, we would sugest to address the request in clear and an unambiguous manner. 

Spain: Action taken: ; Action completed: ; Completion date: 

ERDF and COHESION 

  With regard to observation 6.5 in the Court of Auditors’ report on the risks to regularity for ERDF/CF expenditure 
when ineligible costs are declared, our  experience year  after year and the errors detected in audits of transactions 
require  the  Intermediate  Bodies  to  increase  the  administrative  checks  on  expenditure  presumed  to  be  eligible. 
Moreover, all this practice is reinforced with training of managers. All this tends to minimise the risk, though given 
the  complexity  and  quantity of  the  numerous  measures  that  the  complex  Spanish  administration  carries  out  under 
public procurement, minimisation is slow. 

  With regard to observation 6.7 in the Report concerning the fact that Member States’ authorities face greater risks to 
the regularity of transactions as the end of the eligibility period approaches, we would point out that Spain proposed 
to  the  EU  making  the  ‘n+2  rule’  more  flexible  so  that  it  can  be  shown  that  expenditure  previously  committed  is 
implemented, although it is asked that compliance with this requirement should not be required by a specific date, 
pending the necessary checks of the eligibility of this expenditure. 

76 

 
 
Paragraph 
6.9(b) - 
footnote 9 

Annex  1.1  sets  out  the  key 
elements  of  our  audit  approach 
and  methodology.  For  the  audit 
of 
and 
the 
territorial 
following  specific  points  should 
be noted: 

‘Economic, 

cohesion’ 

social 

the 

level  of 

instruments 
(b)  For  financial 
under  shared  management,  we 
also reviewed their disbursement 
rates (i.e. the proportion of funds 
final 
used  at 
recipients). This was done on the 
basis  of 
the  Commission’s 
progress  reporting  for  2014  and 
our examination of seven ERDF 
financial  instruments  in  seven 
Member States (9). 

(9)  Bulgaria,  Greece,  Spain, 
Italy,  Hungary,  Poland  and 
United Kingdom. 

  Finally,  concerning  observation  6.14  on  errors  in  the  selection  of  projects  and  compliance  with  EU  and  national 
public  procurement  rules,  it  is  true  that  most  irregular  expenditure  relates  to  ineligible  expenditure  (late  payment, 
failure to provide proof of payment, expenditure not directly related to the project and erroneous allocation of labour 
or  indirect  costs)  and  non-compliance  with  public  procurement  rules.    However,  we  would  point  out  that  work  is 
being done to remedy these errors and that they never affect large projects, since the Commission itself decides the 
selection criteria for those projects. 

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

This section describes the ECA audit scope and approach. 

Greece: Action taken: YES; Action completed: NO; Completion date: 31/12/2016 

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

Factual finding; no action justified. 

Poland: Action taken: ; Action completed: ; Completion date:  

This observation does not include any specific reservations against Poland. 

Spain: Action taken: ; Action completed: ; Completion date: 

Spain: Action taken: ; Action completed: ; Completion date: 

ERDF and COHESION 

  With regard to observation 6.5 in the Court of Auditors’ report on the risks to regularity for ERDF/CF expenditure 
when  ineligible costs are declared, our  experience year  after year and the errors detected in audits of transactions 
require  the  Intermediate  Bodies  to  increase  the  administrative  checks  on  expenditure  presumed  to  be  eligible. 
Moreover, all this practice is reinforced with training of managers. All this tends to minimise the risk, though given 
the  complexity  and  quantity of  the  numerous  measures  that  the  complex  Spanish  administration  carries  out  under 
public procurement, minimisation is slow. 

  With regard to observation 6.7 in the Report concerning the fact that Member States’ authorities face greater risks to 
the regularity of transactions as the end of the eligibility period approaches, we would point out that Spain proposed 
to  the  EU  making  the  ‘n+2  rule’  more  flexible  so  that  it  can  be  shown  that  expenditure  previously  committed  is 
implemented, although it is asked that compliance with this requirement should not be required by a specific date, 
pending the necessary checks of the eligibility of this expenditure. 

  Finally,  concerning  observation  6.14  on  errors  in  the  selection  of  projects  and  compliance  with  EU  and  national 
public  procurement  rules,  it  is  true  that  most  irregular  expenditure  relates  to  ineligible  expenditure  (late  payment, 
failure to provide proof of payment, expenditure not directly related to the project and erroneous allocation of labour 

77 

 
 
Paragraph 
6.9(c) - 
footnote 10 

social 

‘Economic, 

Annex  1.1  sets  out  the  key 
elements  of  our  audit  approach 
and  methodology.  For  the  audit 
and 
of 
territorial 
the 
following  specific  points  should 
be noted: 
(c)  We  assessed  other  elements 
of  internal  controls  and  annual 
activity reports: 

cohesion’ 

the 

(i) 
Commission’s 
supervisory activities of audit 
authorities 
in  16  Member 
States (10); 

(10) Belgium, Bulgaria, Croatia, 
Republic, 
Czech 
Cyprus, 
Germany, 
Spain, 
France,  Italy,  Hungary,  Poland, 
Portugal, Romania, Slovakia and 
United Kingdom. 

Estonia, 

or  indirect  costs)  and  non-compliance  with  public  procurement  rules.    However,  we  would  point  out  that  work  is 
being done to remedy these errors and that they never affect large projects, since the Commission itself decides the 
selection criteria for those projects. 

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

This section describes the ECA audit scope and approach. 

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

No comment, no specific finding. 

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

AA 

France: Action taken: NON; Action completed: NON; Completion date: 

Dans le cadre de la préparation de la déclaration d’assurance relative à l’exercice 2015 (réf. 1999FR053DO001), la Cour 
des comptes européenne a transmis, le 6 avril 2016, ses constatations préliminaires. La France n’a pas encore été rendue 
destinataire des conclusions de cet audit. 

Germany: Action taken: ; Action completed: ; Completion date: 

For information purposes only; no answer required. 

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

Factual finding; no action justified. 

Poland: Action taken: ; Action completed: ; Completion date:  

This observation does not include any specific reservations against Poland. 

Portugal: Action taken: ; Action completed: ; Completion date: 

Nothing relevant to report. 

Romania: Action taken: ; Action completed: ; Completion date: 

AA (Audit Authority): Regarding the Commission’s supervisory activities of audit authorities in the Member States, we 
specify  that,  between  09  November  2015  and  13  November  2015,  European  Commission  auditors  from  DG  REGIO 
carried out an audit mission at the office of the Audit Authority, the aim of which was to obtain reasonable assurance that 
the activity of the audit authority complied with the requirements of Council Regulation (EC) No 1083/06, particularly 
those under Article 62.1.(b) - Audit of operations. Furthermore, the auditors assessed the reliability of the results of the 

78 

 
 
audit activity, presented in the annual control reports and in the annual opinions. 

The  scope  of  the  audit  covered  the  programmes  Regional  Operational  Programme,  Sectoral  Operational  Programme 
Increase  of  Economic  Competitiveness,  Sectoral  Operational  Programme  Transport,  Sectoral  Operational  Programme 
Environment, Operational Programme for Cross-Border Co-operation between Romania and Bulgaria. 

Up to the date of this document, no final audit report has been issued, the provisional conclusion being, pursuant to the 
draft audit report, that, as far as Key Requirement No 3 (Adequate procedures for audits of operations) is concerned, the 
system works, but some improvements are needed (Category 2). 

Slovakia: Action taken: ; Action completed: ; Completion date: 

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

Spain: Action taken: ; Action completed: ; Completion date: 

ERDF and COHESION 

  With regard to observation 6.5 in the Court of Auditors’ report on the risks to regularity for ERDF/CF expenditure 
when ineligible costs are declared, our  experience year  after year and the errors detected in audits of transactions 
require  the  Intermediate  Bodies  to  increase  the  administrative  checks  on  expenditure  presumed  to  be  eligible. 
Moreover, all this practice is reinforced with training of managers. All this tends to minimise the risk, though given 
the  complexity  and  quantity of  the  numerous  measures  that  the  complex  Spanish  administration  carries  out  under 
public procurement, minimisation is slow. 

  With regard to observation 6.7 in the Report concerning the fact that Member States’ authorities face greater risks to 
the regularity of transactions as the end of the eligibility period approaches, we would point out that Spain proposed 
to  the  EU  making  the  ‘n+2  rule’  more  flexible  so  that  it  can  be  shown  that  expenditure  previously  committed  is 
implemented, although it is asked that compliance with this requirement should not be required by a specific date, 
pending the necessary checks of the eligibility of this expenditure. 

  Finally,  concerning  observation  6.14  on  errors  in  the  selection  of  projects  and  compliance  with  EU  and  national 
public  procurement  rules,  it  is  true  that  most  irregular  expenditure  relates  to  ineligible  expenditure  (late  payment, 
failure to provide proof of payment, expenditure not directly related to the project and erroneous allocation of labour 
or  indirect  costs)  and  non-compliance  with  public  procurement  rules.    However,  we  would  point  out  that  work  is 
being done to remedy these errors and that they never affect large projects, since the Commission itself decides the 
selection criteria for those projects. 

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

This section describes the ECA audit scope and approach. 

79 

 
 
Figure 6.3 

Example  of 
declared 

ineligible  costs 

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

The ECA has used a UK project as a case study to illustrate the issues with EU projects that involve cost reimbursements. 
The ECA has not identified the project referred to here. Errors are often unintentional and minor compliance breaches of 
complex regulations; they do not usually represent fraud or negligence by claimants. 

Figure 6.4  

Example of ineligible project 

Czech Republic: Action taken: NO; Action completed: NO; Completion date: 

The OPEI MA is awaiting the Commission’s opinion as to how individual findings are passed on. The OPEI MA does 
not  accept  the  ECA  auditors’  conclusion  regarding  the  size  of  entities  applying  for/benefitting  from  grants  and  the 
verification of the real owner of the project. 

The beneficiary has complied with its obligation under the provisions laid down in the ‘Conditions for the provision of 
grants’ and notified the change of ownership structure (information on the project notice board in eAccount and ISOP 7-
13, 9 February 2012). The OPEI  MA  believes that the change of ownership structure did  not have any effect on SME 
status. Administrative verifications/checks by the intermediary body (IB) always assess the size of the company and any 
changes  in  that  regard  based  on  the  document  ‘Definition  of  SMEs’  i.e.  the  interpretation  given  in  Recommendation 
2003/361/EC of 6 May 2003 concerning the definition of micro, small and medium-sized enterprises. The definition of 
an SME covers associations of companies up to 25 % of capital or voting rights. As for the partner enterprises (between 
25  and  50 %),  the  figures  are  attributed  to  the  applicant/beneficiary  entity  on  a  pro  rata  basis,  whereas  with 
connected/associated companies (share above 50 %) they count in full. In the case of an ownership stake of 20 + 2 % in 
Ekol spol. s r.o. this cannot, as the ECA says, constitute a dominant influence and accordingly this cannot be considered 
a case of connection with EnergoFuture a.s. 

ANLP s.r.o., which has a dominant influence in EnergoFuture, a.s. (78 % ownership), keeps records of the commitment 
of CZK 61.7 million towards Ekol. We can agree that ANLP is not entirely independent of Ekol. The definition of SME 
in Recommendation No 2003/361/EC does not cover connected undertakings in case of outstanding commitments. 

In  the  view  of  the  OPEI  MA  and  the IB  this  cannot  be  considered  as  a  case  of  connected  companies  even  via  natural 
persons.  Jaromír  Kříž  owns  a  marginal  share  of  0.5  %  in  Ekol  and  as  a  member  of  the  Board  of  Directors  he  may 
represent  EnergoFuture  always  jointly,  rather  than  independently.  Stanislav  Veselý  and  Gustav  Poslušný  who  have  an 
ownership  stake  in  Ekol  are  also  chairman  and  member  of  the  supervisory  board  of  EnergoFuture.  According  to  the 
Articles of Association of EnergoFuture, the supervisory board is a monitoring authority and does not in itself have any 
decision-making powers in relation to the direction or management of the company. 

Poland: Action taken: ; Action completed: ; Completion date: 

The  information  does  not  provide  any  specific  example  of  a  non-eligible  project  in  Poland,  and  consequently,  it  is 
impossible to respond to specific allegations raised by the ECA. General clarifications relating to, for example, eligibility 
errors are provided in the answer to question 1.1 in Annex III. 

80 

 
 
Figure 6.5 

Example  of  serious  failure  to 
comply with public procurement 
rules 

Paragraph 
6.24 - 
footnote 21 

In  May  2016,  the  Commission 
has  addressed  letters  of  formal 
notice  whereby  the  Commission 
reminds  them  of  their  overdue 
obligation  to  enact  in  national 
law the three EU directives to 20 
out  of  the  28  Member  States 
(21). 

(21)  The  eight  Member  States 
that  implemented  all  three  new 
Denmark, 
are: 
Directives 
Germany, 
Italy, 
France, 
Hungary,  Romania,  Slovakia 
and the United Kingdom. 

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

On 1 June 2016, the managing authority of the Federal Transport Programme sent an opinion to the European Court of 
Auditors (ECA) and the European Commission. Additional  works (1.3 %) and modified works  (89.3  %) were directly 
awarded  to  the  same  contractor  via  amendments  to  the  contract.  According  to  the  legal  interpretation  of  the 
aforementioned managing authority, Article 31 of Directive 2004/18/EC applies to additional works but not to modified 
works. The ECA’s final audit communication has not yet been issued. 

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

The UK is one of three countries the ECA has used as a case study to illustrate the issues with EU projects that involve 
cost reimbursements. The ECA has not identified the projects referred to here. Errors are often unintentional and minor 
compliance breaches of complex regulations; they do not usually represent fraud or negligence by claimants. 

Denmark: Action taken: ; Action completed: ; Completion date: 

Footnote  21  refers  to  the  fact  that  Denmark  is  one  of  the  eight  Member  States  which  have  implemented  all 
three Directives. We have no comments on this. 

France: Action taken: OUI; Action completed: OUI; Completion date: 

La transposition des directives en France a été effectuée dans les délais impartis par la Commission : 

La directive 2014/23/UE a été transposée de manière complète par la publication des textes suivants : le décret n° 2014-
1341 du 6 novembre 2014 modifiant le décret n° 2010-406 du 26 avril 2010 relatif aux contrats de concession de travaux 
publics et portant diverses dispositions en matière de commande publique ; l’ordonnance n° 2016-65 du 29 janvier 2016 
relative  aux  contrats  de  concession  ;  la  loi  n°  2015-990  du  6  août  2015  pour  la  croissance,  l’activité  et  l’égalité  des 
chances économiques (article 209) ; le décret n° 2016-86 du 1er février 2016 relatif aux contrats de concession ; l’arrêté 
du  21  mars  2016  fixant  le  modèle  d’avis  pour  la  passation  des  contrats  de  concession  ;  l’avis  relatif  aux  seuils  de 
procédure  et  à  la  liste  des  autorités  publiques  centrales  en  droit  de  la  commande  publique  ;  l’avis  relatif  à  la  liste  des 
activités  qui sont  des  travaux  en  droit de  la  commande  publique  ;  l’avis  relatif  aux  contrats  de  la  commande  publique 
ayant pour objet des services sociaux et autres services spécifiques. 

La  directive  2014/24/UE    et  la  directive  2014/25/UE  ont  été  transposées  de  manière  complète  par  la  publication  des 
textes suivants : l’ordonnance n° 2015-899 du 23 juillet 2015 relative aux marchés publics ; la loi n° 2014-1545 du 20 
décembre 2014 relative à la simplification de la vie des entreprises et portant diverses dispositions de simplification et de 
clarification du droit et des procédures administratives (article 42) ; le décret n° 2016-360 du 25 mars 2016 relatif aux 
marchés publics ; le décret n° 2016-361 du 25 mars 2016 relatif aux marchés publics de défense ou de sécurité ; l’arrêté 
du 29 mars 2016 fixant la liste des renseignements et des documents pouvant être demandés aux candidats aux marchés 
publics ;  l’avis relatif à la liste des dispositions internationales en matière de droit environnemental, social et du travail 
permettant de rejeter une offre comme anormalement basse en matière de marchés publics ; l’avis relatif à la nature et au 

81 

 
 
contenu  des  spécifications  techniques  dans  les  marchés  publics  ;  l’avis  relatif  aux  seuils  de  procédure  et  à  la  liste  des 
autorités publiques centrales en droit de la commande publique ; l’avis relatif à la liste des activités qui sont des travaux 
en  droit  de  la  commande  publique  ;  l’avis  relatif  aux  contrats  de  la  commande  publique  ayant  pour  objet  des  services 
sociaux et autres services spécifiques. 

Germany: Action taken: ; Action completed: ; Completion date: 

For information purposes only; no answer required. 

Hungary: Action taken: YES; Action completed: YES; Completion date: 01.11.2015 

The most important measure and the most significant result in 2015 as regards public procurement was the passing of the 
new public procurement act (Act CXLIII of 2015 on Public Procurement) and its entry into force on 1 November 2015. 
By passing the new Public Procurement Act and its implementing regulations, Hungary was the first of the EU Member 
States to transpose all three of the new EU’s public procurement directives. These pieces of legislation were the result of 
wide social dialogue. Professional chambers, interest representation organisations, and external experts were all involved 
in  the  preparation  of  the  draft  legislation.  Additionally,  the  PMO’s  experts  responsible  for  preparing  the  draft  also 
consulted with the Commission’s experts on numerous occasions, both by video conferencing and in personal meetings. 
As a result of the above and the extended deadline for social consultation, many recommendations were included into the 
text. The parliamentary session held before the new Public Procurement Act was passed included consultations with the 
representatives of the parties in parliament. The draft was again amended to take into account their recommendations. 

Romania: Action taken: YES-MFE; Action completed: YES; Completion date: 26/05/2016 

MFE:  Romania  transposed  the  three  European  directives  into  national  law,  through  three  primary  legislative  acts,  as 
follows: 

1.  Law No 98/2016 on public procurement;  

2.  Law No 99/2016 on sectoral procurement; 

3.  Law No 100/2016 on works and services concessions. 

They were approved by the Parliament and signed into law, entering into force on 26 May 2016. 

In June, the Government of Romania approved the secondary legislation, namely: 

1.  Government Decision No 395/2016 approving the implementing rules for the provisions regarding the award of 

public procurement contracts/framework agreements under Law No 98/2016 on public procurement; 

2.  Government Decision No 394/2016 approving the implementing rules for the provisions regarding the award of 

sectoral contracts/framework agreements under Law No 99/2016 on sectoral procurement. 

The secondary legislation for services concessions will be also adopted by the end of this year. 

82 

 
 
Paragraph 
6.28 - 
footnote 26 

in 

We  identified  this  year  seven 
ERDF/CF  projects 
five 
Member States that infringed the 
EU  state  aid  rules  (26).  Where 
necessary,  we  requested  and 
obtained 
preliminary 
a 
assessment  by  the  Directorate-
General  for  Competition.  This 
assessment  and  the  case  law  of 
the  European  Court  of  Justice 
were  taken  into  account  when 
classifying errors. 

(26)  Czech  Republic, 
Latvia,  Poland 
Kingdom. 

Italy, 
and  United 

Figure 6.6 

Example  of  a  project  infringing 
state aid rules 

Slovakia: Action taken: ; Action completed: ; Completion date: 

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

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

The ECA has recognised the UK’s progress in enacting the new EU directives on public procurement. 

Czech Republic: Action taken: NO; Action completed: NO; Completion date: 

The MA of the programme does not accept the conclusion of the ECA’s auditors regarding infringement of EU State aid 
rules. The MA is of the opinion that the subsidy of 40 % complies with the call and the regional aid map.  The OPEI MA 
is awaiting the Commission’s opinion as to how individual findings are passed on. 

Latvia: Action taken: YES; Action completed: NO; Completion date: 

Having assessed the information contained in the audit report along with DG COMP’s position on this issue, we consider 
that in Latvia’s case the Court of Auditors has not conducted a sufficient evaluation of whether financing provided by 
public bodies or public capital companies is deemed private assets to which the rules on State aid do not apply, and it has 
also  not  taken  into  account  DG  COMP's  explanations  regarding  instances  of  increased  intensity  in  the  context  of  an 
incentive effect. We therefore consider that in Latvia’s case the State aid rules have not been infringed. 

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

The  Managing  Authority  for  the  Infrastructure  and  Environment  Operational  Programme  (POIiŚ)  has  not  received  the 
final position of the ECA. The Managing Authority for POIiŚ does not agree with the allegations made by the ECA in the 
specific cases where the legality of State aid was questioned. 

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

The UK is one of five countries the ECA sampled where state aid infringements were found. The ECA has not identified 
the projects referred to here. Errors are often unintentional and minor compliance breaches of complex regulations; they 
do not usually represent fraud or negligence by claimants. 

Latvia: Action taken: YES; Action completed: NO; Completion date: 

Having assessed the information contained in the audit report along with DG COMP’s position on this issue, we consider 
that in Latvia’s case the Court of Auditors has not conducted a sufficient evaluation of whether financing provided by 
public bodies or public capital companies is deemed private assets to which the rules on State aid do not apply, and it has 
also not taken into account DG COMP's explanations regarding instances of increased intensity in the context of an 
incentive effect. We therefore consider that in Latvia’s case the State aid rules have not been infringed. 

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

83 

 
 
The  Managing  Authority  for  POIiŚ  does  not  agree  with  the  allegations  made  by  the  ECA  in  its  initial  report.  The 
Managing Authority for POIiŚ has not received the final position of the ECA. 

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

The UK is one of two countries the ECA has used as a case study to illustrate the issues with EU projects that infringe 
state  aid  rules.  The  ECA  has  not  identified  the  projects  referred  to  here.  Errors  are  often  unintentional  and  minor 
compliance breaches of complex regulations; they do not usually represent fraud or negligence by claimants. 

Hungary: Action taken: YES; Action completed: NO; Completion date: 

The Member State will take into consideration the judgment referred to in the finding and  will proceed accordingly in 
similar cases. 

Paragraph 
6.33 - 
footnote 30 

For  example, 
the  Court  of 
Justice  ruled  in  2012  that  VAT 
must  be  considered  recoverable 
whenever  an  operator  charges 
fees  with  VAT  to  the  ultimate 
users  of  the  infrastructure  (30). 
We  identified  three  cases  where 
recoverable  VAT  was  declared 
by public bodies as eligible cost 
(see Figure 6.7). 

(30)  Case  T-89/10,  Hungary  v 
Commission,  judgement  of  20 
September  2012  of  the  General 
Court. 

Figure 6.7 

Example of ineligible VAT 

Germany: Action taken: ; Action completed: ; Completion date: 

The Commission already has all the information at its disposal; see Annex II. 

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

The  Commission’s  English  follow-up  letter  regarding  the  ECA  audit  was  received  by  the  Managing  Authority  on 
05 October  2016.  The  Member  State  has  2 months  to  respond  to  the  Commission’s  letter  or,  if  necessary,  initiate 
corrective measures, starting from the time the letter is received in Hungarian. The end date of the action can therefore 
presently not be determined. 

Paragraph 
6.38 

By  the  end  of  2014,  1  025 
financial  instruments  had  been 
set up under 183 ERDF and ESF 
OPs  in  all  but  three  Member 

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

We appreciate the increasing emphasis on Financial Instruments for delivering EU funding across EU funding lines and 
we  are  engaged  in  examining  opportunities  across  all  relevant  sectors.  It  should  be  noted  that  Ireland  examined  the 
potential for using FIs in the current ERDF programmes (including a feasibility study conducted by the EIB) and found 

84 

 
 
States 
(Ireland,  Croatia  and 
Luxembourg).  Taken  together, 
they  have  an  endowment  of 
around 16 018 million euro (36). 

that there was no scope for using FIs at present. The Irish EAFRD and EMFF MAs are currently undertaking an ex-ante 
assessment of FI use in their programmes and we await the results of that assessment. 

Luxembourg: Action taken: ; Action completed: ; Completion date: 

FEDER : La valeur de l’enveloppe financière est jugée trop faible pour recourir à des IFs. Il a été jugé que la mise en 
place d’IFs pour les POs au Luxembourg engendra des coûts supplémentaires et une complexité accrue (au niveau de la 
gestion, de l’administration et du contrôle) disproportionnés par rapport aux avantages éventuels. 

Paragraph 
6.42 

6.8 

presents 

financed 

Figure 
the 
disbursement  rates  for  financial 
by 
instruments 
‘Economic,  social  and  territorial 
cohesion’  as  at  31  December 
2014. Already in our last annual 
report  we  have  pointed  to  the 
difficulties  of  several  Member 
States to use the endowments of 
the  financial  instruments  in  full. 
We  note  particular  problems 
with  low  disbursement  rates  in 
(Greece, 
six  Member  States 
Spain, 
Netherlands, 
Austria  and  Slovakia)  compared 
to the EU average. 

Italy, 

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

Financial instruments were used in two ERDF programmes. However, it is important to note that these instruments were 
allocated very little funding from the outset, by comparison with the rest of Europe. Moreover, the actual use made of 
financial instruments, is only clear when the programme is closed. This will be on 31 March 2017. 

Greece: Action taken: YES; Action completed: NO; Completion date: 31/12/2016 

Ministry of the Economy and Development: for the financial instruments for the 2007-2013 period, the departments of 
the Ministry of the Economy and Development carried on continuous and persistent discussions and negotiations with the 
European Commission for the removal or mitigation of any difficulties that had been identified in terms of regulations in 
order  to  bring  about  the  improvement  of  absorption.  In  addition  to  this,  we  would  point  to  the  achievement  of  the 
removal  of  the  prohibition  on  the  funding  of  capital  movement,  which  was  achieved  at  the  end  of  2012,  and  the 
possibility of combining subsidies with simultaneous funding from financial instruments, achieved in 2013. Negotiations 
with the European Commission are continuing even now, in order for it to become possible for pre-existing loans to be 
incorporated into the financial instruments of the new period. In addition, proposals are being examined in all areas in 
order  to  sketch  out  ways  and  means  for  funding  that  will  satisfy  the  overwhelming  majority  of  Greek  enterprises. 
However, it should be pointed out that prior to the implementation of any of the above, care is taken to ensure that they 
are compatible with national and EU rules and that their implementation does not infringe competition rules. 

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

In anticipation of the regulations for the new period (according to which payments follow the liquidity), the funds were 
not fully paid in all at once, for reasons of sound financial management. They were also launched late. Nevertheless, we 
can  now  state  that  all  funds  have  been  almost  completely  exhausted  and  virtually  all  the  funds  deposited  have  been 
converted into loans and contributions to final beneficiaries. 

Slovakia: Action taken: YES; Action completed: NO; Completion date: runs (until the end of the eligibility of 
expenditure at the national level) 

Ministry  of  Education,  Science,  Research  and  Sport:  The  managing  authority  is  making  every  effort  to  ensure  that 
financial resources contracted under the JEREMIE initiative are exhausted. As at August 2016, 53.44 % of the financial 
resources had been exhausted, a rise by 34 percentage points compared to the report presented in the infographic (Figure 

85 

 
 
Figure 6.8 

financed 

Disbursement  rates  for  financial 
instruments 
by 
'Economic, social, and territorial 
cohesion'  as  at  31  December 
2014. 

6.8 of the 2015 Annual Report). To ensure that the allocation is exhausted, the managing authority is locked in intensive 
communication  with  the  EIF’s  successor  for  the  JEREMIE  initiative  –  Slovenská  záručná  a rozvojová  banka  Asset 
Management, a.s. 

Ministry of Economy: Under the Operational Programme Competitiveness and Economic Growth, uptake within the 
scope of the JEREMIE financial instrument was increased by EUR 40 million (the payment claim of 16 November 2015) 
and within the scope of the JESSICA III financial instrument by EUR 59 million (the payment claim of 28 December 
2015). 

Spain: Action taken: ; Action completed: ; Completion date:  

ESF 

As regards the ESF, Spain plans to use financial instruments in two operational programmes in the 2014-2020 MFF. In 
2015 and 2016 managers and technical staff from the managing and certifying authorities participated in various events 
organised by the European Commission to improve their training in these instruments. 

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

See comment to 6.42. 

Bulgaria: Action taken: ; Action completed: ; Completion date: 

ME:  The  overall  budget  of  the  JEREMIE  initiative  for  the  2007—2013  programming  period  was  MEUR  349.  It  was 
allocated for the implementation of five types of financial instruments: 1) First loss portfolio guarantee; 2) Portfolio risk 
sharing fund; 3) Entrepreneurship acceleration and seed funds; 4) Risk capital fund; and 5) Co-investment fund, with 17 
financial operations. The agreement between the JEREMIE Holding Fund and the European Investment Fund (EIF) was 
signed in 2010, and the first instrument was launched at the end of 2011. The period 2013—2014 was characterised by 
initial maturity of financial instruments, which may explain the low levels of absorption. As stated in EIF reports as of 30 
August, according to data from financial intermediaries as of 30 June 2016 (the end date for all financial operations under 
all financial instruments) the total amount of funds under negotiated transactions with financial intermediaries amounted 
to  MEUR  362.85,  of  which  MEUR  355.37  were  actually  allocated  to  SMEs  and  used  for  management  fees.  This 
represents  more  than  100  %  utilisation  of  the  entire  portfolio.  If  necessary,  the  over-utilisation  will  be  covered  using 
receipts from recycled resources. 

Cyprus:  Action taken: ; Action completed: ; Completion date:  

With regard to financial instruments, the disbursement rate at 31 December 2015 was 100 %. 

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

No comment, no specific finding. 

86 

 
 
Denmark:  Action taken: YES; Action completed: NO ; Completion date: 31/12/2016 

The  final  payment  for  all  financial  instruments  under  the  ERDF  and  ESF  programmes  for  2007-2013  will  be  made  in 
2016. 

Estonia:  Action taken: YES; Action completed: NO ; Completion date: 31.03.2017 

Finland:  Action taken: YES; Action completed: NO; Completion date: 

Action fully achieved by the end of the programming period. 

France: Action taken: NON; Action completed: NON; Completion date: Date de clôture des instruments financiers 

Chaque autorité de gestion a pu prendre des mesures propres pour ses instruments, il n’y a pas d’action nationale. Les 
données actualisées ne seront connues qu’à la clôture des instruments financiers. 

Germany: Action taken: ; Action completed: ; Completion date: 

For information purposes only; no answer required. 

Greece: Action taken: YES; Action completed: NO; Completion date: 31/12/2016 

Ministry of the Economy and Development: In order to improve the rate of absorption of the financial instruments 
resources, actions have been taken such as: 

• 
a system of continuous detailed monitoring of progress in the implementation of the financial instruments has been 
put in place, making it possible to intervene immediately to provide instructions and corrective actions where these are 
required. The result of this was an increase in the absorption percentage of these resources to 50.42 % as at July 2015, 
compared with 9.25 % in the corresponding month in 2013. On the basis of this monitoring system, monthly progress 
reports are issued on progress in the implementation of the financial instruments. 

• 
in order to estimate more accurately the forecast absorption and the likely risk of losing resources, the body carried 
out in-depth analysis of the progress made in implementing the financial instruments, broken down by type and product, 
and by operational programme. The aim of the analysis was to examine in detail the level of completion and the prospect 
for each financial instrument, in conjunction with the absorption of the other actions in the national priority pillars, in 
order to reach a clear conclusion as to whether there was a risk of the resources not being absorbed in time. It emerged 
from this analysis that there was no clear risk of the loss of resources from the financial instruments, as even in the worst-
case scenario of the resources which had been made available for them not being absorbed, the difference could be 
covered by other entrepreneurship actions. 

simplification of the procedure for transferring resources between the EIB and banks in the former Hellenic 

• 
Guarantee Fund of the European Investment Bank for Small and Medium Enterprises 

• 

an attempt to work together with the Ministry of the Economy in order to make it possible to issue a special type of 

87 

 
 
tax clearance (without deduction) for financial engineering instruments actions. 

• 

• 

transfer of ICT resources to traditional entrepreneurship actions in five transitional regions. 

attempt at further simplification of procedures at all levels by the managers of the funds 

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

Factual finding; no action justified. 

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

We appreciate the increasing emphasis on Financial Instruments for delivering EU funding across EU funding lines and 
we  are  engaged  in  examining  opportunities  across  all  relevant  sectors.  It  should  be  noted  that  Ireland  examined  the 
potential for using FIs in the current ERDF programmes (including a feasibility study conducted by the EIB) and found 
that there was no scope for using FIs at present. The Irish EAFRD and EMFF MAs are currently undertaking an ex-ante 
assessment of FI use in their programmes and we await the results of that assessment. 

Latvia: Action taken: YES; Action completed: NO; Completion date: 

To ensure that 100 % of finances for activities under the 2007–2013 programming period financial instrument (FI) are 
utilised, their implementation has been extended to 31 October 2016 (the appropriate amendments have been made to the 
Cabinet  Regulation  on  the  implementation  of  activities  and  sub-activities).  The  closure  process  is  taking  place  during 
2016, including the preparation of a final report for submission to the Commission; the final declaration of expenditure is 
also being drawn up, as a result of which it is anticipated that Latvia will be able to receive 100 % EU fund financing. 
The results of completed measures will be reflected in the final declaration of expenditure, which Latvia will submit in 
accordance with regulatory provisions by 31 March 2017, at which point they will be deemed complete. 

Lithuania:  Action taken: YES; Action completed: YES; Completion date: 31/12/2015 

As at 31 December 2015, 100 % of EU structural fund resources allocated to the implementation of financial instruments 
had been used. 

Luxembourg:  Action taken: ; Action completed: ; Completion date: 

n/a 

Netherlands:  Action taken: ; Action completed: ; Completion date: 

Not applicable. 

Poland: Action taken: ; Action completed: ; Completion date: 

This observation does not include any specific reservations against Poland. 

88 

 
 
Portugal: Action taken: ; Action completed: ; Completion date: 

Nothing relevant to report. 

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

Ministry  of  Education,  Science,  Research  and  Sport:  The  managing  authority  is  making  every  effort  to  ensure  that 
financial resources contracted under the JEREMIE initiative are exhausted. As at August 2016, 53.44 % of the financial 
resources had been exhausted, a rise by 34 percentage points compared to the report presented in the infographic (Figure 
6.8 of the 2015 Annual Report). To ensure that the allocation is exhausted, the managing authority is locked in intensive 
communication  with  the  EIF’s  successor  for  the  JEREMIE  initiative  –  Slovenská  záručná  a rozvojová  banka  Asset 
Management, a.s. 

Ministry  of  Economy:  Under  the  Operational  Programme  Competitiveness  and  Economic  Growth,  uptake  within  the 
scope of the JEREMIE financial instrument was increased by EUR 40 million (the payment claim of 16 November 2015) 
and  within  the  scope  of  the  JESSICA  III  financial  instrument  by  EUR 59 million  (the  payment  claim  of  28  December 
2015). 

Slovenia: Action taken: ; Action completed: ; Completion date: 

Concerning  the  financial  instruments  (Observation  3)  the  MA  checked  about  the  level  of  payments  in  the  context  of 
cohesion policy. ECA indicates in its report, that the rate in Slovenia was 90%. From the quartal report, delivered to the 
EC by the MA, we can understand, that on the 31st December 2014 the 78% of the FI funds were allocated to the final 
recipients. The methodology of calculating this rate, used by the ECA, was not known to us, therefore we cannot claim, 
that the reported data is not false.  

The finding of the ECA refers to the statement, that the rate is relatively low in average, however, considering the fact, 
that this rate is higher than the average in Slovenia, this finding is likely irrelevant for Slovenia. In Slovenia there were 
no special measures needed to be implemented in order to increase the absorption. 

Sweden: Action taken: NO; Action completed: ; Completion date: 

This observation does not require Sweden to take action. 

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

n/a - the map shows the rate of disbursement in Financial Instruments by Member State . 

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

The  Managing  Authority  submitted  its  comments  on  the  ECA  audit  in  April 2016.  The  ECA’s  final  standpoint  is  not 
presently available to the MS so no corrective measures have yet been taken. The end date of the action can therefore 
presently not be determined. 

89 

Figure 6.9 

Example  of  an  inleigible  loan 
(ineligible recipent). 

 
 
Germany:  Action taken: ; Action completed: ; Completion date: 

For information purposes only; no answer required. 

Spain:  Action taken:YES; Action completed: ; Completion date: 

ESF 

Under the new programming framework and in line with a result-oriented approach, all transactions must contribute to 
attaining a specific objective. The indicator values show whether these objectives have been achieved. 

Paragraph 
6.81 - 
footnote 57 

For  the  remaining  two  cases  (1 
%),  we  could  not  assess  the 
output  of  the  projects  either 
because  specific  targets  in  the 
output objectives were not set at 
the  stage  of  the  approval  of  the 
the  managing 
project 
or 
authority/intermediate 
body 
could  not  provide  appropriate 
to 
documentation 
substantiate that such targets had 
been 
and 
specified 
communicated to the beneficiary 
(57).  Therefore,  we  cannot 
assess whether or to what extent 
these  projects  contributed  to  the 
achievement 
the  OP 
of 
objectives. 

us 

to 

(57)  These  two  projects  were  in 
Spain and Germany. 

Figure 6.11 

Example of a project which fully 
achieved its objectives. 

Figure 6.12 

Example  of  a  project  which  did 
not achieve its objectives. 

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

This finding refers to project No POIG.01.04.00-06-029/11 SMF POLAND Sp. z o. o. The Implementing Body (Polska 
Agencja  Rozwoju  Przedsiębiorczości  –  PARP)  and  the  Managing  Authority  for  the  Innovative  Economy  Operational 
Programme  (POIG)  did  not  agree  with  the  ECA’s  findings,  and  they  informed  the  ECA  thereof  in  their  reply  to 
preliminary findings. The reply to preliminary findings was forwarded to the European Commission for reference. As at 
2 November  2016,  neither  the  ECA,  nor  the  European  Commission  has  expressed  its  position  towards  the  reply  to 
preliminary  findings.  Irrespective  of  the  above,  the  PARP  terminated  the  project  financing  agreement  with  the 
beneficiary  as  of  2  June  2016  (failure  to  implement  the  project  was  stated  as  the  reason  for  termination)  and  it  is 
following the procedure to recover the funds handed over for the project implementation. 

Paragraph 

Our  assessment  in  15  Member  Austria:  Action taken: NO; Action completed: ; Completion date: 

90 

 
 
 
6.87 

States sampled showed that such 
cases  were  identified  in  13  of 
them.  However,  the  issue  is 
particularly  prevalent  in  Czech 
Republic,  Spain,  France,  Italy, 
Latvia and Austria for ERDF/CF 
and  Czech  Republic,  Germany, 
Spain  and  Poland  for  ESF.  In 
these  countries  result  indicators 
were  not  defined  for  more  than 
half  of  the  completed  projects 
examined. 

The findings of the ECA relate to projects in the transnational ETC CENTRAL EUROPE Programme. It is particularly 
difficult to define result indicators for the project types in the network programmes. 

Czech Republic:  Action taken: NO; Action completed: NO; Completion date: 

In accordance with the legislation in force for the period 2007-2013, the monitoring of the result indicators is required 
only  at  the  level  of  the  operational  programme  and  priority  axis  level  and  not  at  project  level.  We  therefore  reject,  in 
principle, the idea that that conclusion be presented as a finding in the context of the annual report.  From the point of 
view  of  methodology,  in  terms  of  projects  in  the  Czech  Republic  it  is  mandatory  to  look  only  at  the  main  quantified 
indicator.    The  monitoring  of  result  indicators  in  the  projects  is  not  obligatory  in  the  Czech  Republic  as  a  whole  or 
specifically according to the national methodology. When the indicator systems were developed, particular emphasis was 
put on the link between quantified and result indicators rather than the monitoring of result indicators already at project 
level. In view of the nature of result indicators, it is very often difficult to monitor and evaluate them in such detail. 

France:  Action taken: OUI; Action completed: OUI; Completion date: 

Pour la période 2007-2013, le suivi des réalisations était requis au niveau de chaque projet et c’est ce qui a été pleinement 
effectué par les autorités de gestion françaises. L’observation de la CCE mentionne l’absence du suivi des résultats ou de 
valeurs  cibles  dans  les  documents  d’approbation  des  projets.  Les  résultats  ont  analysés  à  travers  les  différentes 
évaluations qui ont été conduites par les autorités de gestion pendant le programme. De ce fait, la notion de résultat est 
plus liée à une thématique ou bien à un type de soutien qu’au niveau de chaque projet individuellement. 

Germany:  Action taken: ; Action completed: ; Completion date: 

For information purposes only; no answer required. 

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

When drawing up the 2007–2013 programming documents, the strategic orientation referred to in the 2006 Commission 
working  document 
'INDICATIVE  GUIDELINES  ON  EVALUATION  METHODS:  MONITORING  AND 
EVALUATION INDICATORS Working Document No. 2'* was used for the purpose of determining result indicators, 
i.e.  in  contrast  to  output  indicators,  result  indicators  are  mainly  determined  to  reflect  the  total  contribution  of  one  or 
perhaps more activities to a sector’s development, assessing the outcome not only on the basis of project data, but using 
statistical  sector  information  (e.g.  passenger  time  savings  in  connection  with  improved  roads,  etc.).  During  the  2014–
2020  programming  period  the  Commission  changed  its  approach  and  these  improvements  have  in  turn  been  made  at 
national level in line with the Commission guidelines. 

*http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/sources/docoffic/cocof/2006/cocof_06_0010_00_en.pdf. 

On 11 November 2014 the Commission approved the operational  programme ‘Growth and jobs’ setting out indicators, 
and a corresponding agreement has been reached with the Commission and the methodology for calculating indicators 
and data sources have been established.  

91 

 
 
Poland:  Action taken: ; Action completed: ; Completion date: 

The  observations  were  expressed  in  PF-7202  and  PF-7209  reports.  The  Managing  Authority  for  the  Human  Capital 
Operational  Programme  (POKL),  acting  also  as  the  Managing  Authority  for  the  Knowledge  Education  Development 
Operational  Programme  (POWER),  upholds  its  clarifications  provided  in  response  to  the  reports.  According  to  the 
clarifications,  the  Human  Capital  Operational  Programme  (POKL)  satisfies  the  requirements  specified  in  Community 
provisions  as  it  defines,  for  each  priority  axis,  specific  objectives  quantified  by  appropriate  indicators  of  output  and 
result,  for  which  targets  were  set.  According  to  the  European  Commission’s  guidelines,  such  indicators  may  be 
monitored with the use of various sources. For the majority of output indicators and few result indicators, the sources are 
beneficiaries’  data  obtained  from  reporting  at  the  project  level.  It  is  possible  due  to  the  specific  nature  of  output 
indicators, which are achieved directly by beneficiaries in the course of project implementation. On the other hand, due to 
their specific nature and the necessity to assess the quality of measures taken, some result indicators are measured within 
evaluation studies commissioned by the Managing Authority / Intermediate Body or with the use of administrative data. 
Such  approach  is  justified  on  the  one  hand  by  the  necessity  to  provide  objective  data  (collected  or  reviewed  by  an 
external entity), and on the other hand – by the necessity to assess the quality of support provided, which should be done 
in  a  wider  context.  The  adopted  system  of  POKL  monitoring  provides  for  various  sources  of  monitoring  the 
Programme’s results. 

For some activities related especially to the return to the labour market, it is necessary to use indicators measured in an 
evaluation study or obtained from administrative data, which is reflected in the Programme provisions (Annex 3  POKL 
Monitoring indicators). For such activities, the intervention result was monitored in a holistic manner ‒ in an evaluation 
study  entitled  Study  on  the  effectiveness  of  support  provided  as  part  of  the  regional  component  of  POKL 2007–2013, 
which  was  conducted  in  several  stages.  The  effectiveness  and  quality  of  support  provided  in  projects  targeted  at 
professional activation and undertaking employment is monitored through indicators related to the taking-up of jobs by 
project  participants  (so-called  employment  effectiveness  measured  in  the  evaluation  study)  and  through  so-called 
activation  indicators  reflecting  the  proportion  of  unemployed  people  in  a  given  group  covered  with  various  forms  of 
professional  activation  (measured  with  the  use  of  data  from  the  Ministry  of  Family,  Labour  and  Social  Policy).  It  is 
impossible to measure both types of indicators at the level of a single project. 

Another group of result indicators which are not monitored at the level of a single project are ‘coverage indicators’ that 
show  the  scale  of  support  provided  to  a  given  target  group;  these  are  indicators  measured  in  respect  of  the  entire 
population (in the country) which may have been supported. Due to their nature and as it is necessary to refer to the entire 
population (e.g. the proportion of key employees of Public Employment Services who completed training sessions in the 
non-school system that are relevant for the regional labour market), for the purpose of calculating  the indicators,  it is 
required to refer to the entire population of key employees in a province or in a country, which is naturally impossible at 
the level of a single project implemented, for instance, in one district. In such scenario, a beneficiary is obliged to specify 
its  own  result  indicator,  which  refers,  for  instance,  to  the  number  of  people  who  obtained  professional  qualifications 
(certified qualifications). This group  (of coverage indicators) includes also:  the proportion of social welfare institution 

92 

 
 
users who were covered by social contracts, the proportion of social welfare institution users at the age of professional 
activity and not working who, within the Priority, were covered by the activities aimed at active inclusion or effectiveness 
indicator – the proportion of beneficiaries who took up employment within 6 months after taking part in the project to the 
total number of people who took part in the projects, as referred to in the audit report. 

It  should  be  emphasised  that  in  view  of  the  circumstances  (impossibility  of  measuring  some  results  specified  in  the 
Programme  at  the  level  of  a  single  project),  beneficiaries  were  obliged  to  specify  their  own  result  indicators,  which 
reflect  the  achievement  of  the  project  objective  and  a  qualitative  change  that  occurred  following  its  implementation. 
Result  indicators  relating,  among  others,  to  the  improvement  of  professional  qualifications,  physical  fitness, 
self-confidence or communication skills of project participants were specified in the grant application analysed (e.g. the 
number of people who experienced increase in self-confidence and belief in oneself, the number of people who improved 
their communication skills). The indicators were measured at the project implementation stage, and their final levels were 
stated in the final payment application. 

Spain:  Action taken: YES; Action completed: ; Completion date: 

ESF 

Under  the  new  programming  framework,  each  transaction  selected  must  meet  the  indicators  set  out  in  Annex  I  to 
Regulation  (EU)  No  1304/2013.  It  will  thus  be  possible  to  measure  the  attainment  of  the  specified  values  and  the 
progress made after each transaction is completed. 

ERDF 

Of the 12 ERDF and Cohesion projects visited, only in two projects had the result indicators not been defined. It cannot 
therefore be claimed that this is a particularly frequent problem in Spain in relation to these funds (ERDF and Cohesion).  

The two cases in which result indicators had not been defined related to sewerage works for which it was considered that 
the objectives of the Operational Programme had been met through output indicators and monitoring of the volume of 
water treated. 

Furthermore,  under  the  new  programming  framework,  each  transaction  selected  must  meet  the  indicators  set  out  in 
Annex I to Regulation (EU) No 1304/2013. It will thus be possible to measure the attainment of the specified values and 
the progress made after each transaction is completed. 

93 

 
 
 
 
 
 
CHAPTER 7 – Natural resources 

Paragraphs 

Observations in the 2015 
Court's Annual Report 

Paragraph 
7.8(a) - 
footnote 9 

Annex  1.1  sets  out  the  key 
elements  of  our  audit  approach 
and  methodology.  For  the  audit 
the 
of 
following  specific  points  should 
be noted: 

resources’, 

‘Natural 

for 

transactions 

(a)  We  examined  a  sample  of 
180  transactions  for  EAGF  and 
‘Rural 
179 
development, 
environment, 
climate  action  and  fisheries’  as 
defined in Annex 1.1, paragraph 
7. Each sample is designed to be 
representative  of  the  range  of 
spending 
the  MFF 
under 
heading  for  each  of  the  two 
specific assessments (8). In 2015 
the  EAGF  sample  consisted  of 
transactions  from  18  Member 
States (9). 

(9)  Bulgaria, 
the  Czech 
Republic,  Denmark,  Germany 
(Baden-Württemberg,  Bavaria, 
Saxony, 
Hesse, 
Lower 
Schleswig  Holstein), 
Ireland, 
Greece, Spain (Aragon, Castilla-
La  Mancha,  Castilla  y  Léon, 
Extremadura 
and  Madrid), 
France,  Italy  (AGEA,  Calabria, 

Member States' replies 

Cyprus: Action taken: YES; Action completed: YES; Completion date: 06/2016 

See comments in Annex II. 

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

No comment, no specific finding. 

Denmark: Action taken: ; Action completed: ; Completion date: 

Footnote 9 refers to the fact that Denmark and 17 other Member States were selected for audit. We have no comments on 
this. 

Finland: Action taken: NO; Action completed: NO; Completion date: 

France: Action taken: OUI; Action completed: OUI FEAGA, NON FEADER; Completion date: 

N/A/ cf. réponse au chapitre 1 observation 2. 

Germany: Action taken: ; Action completed: ; Completion date: 

The Commission already has all the information at its disposal; see Annex II. 

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

Factual finding that does not require action. 

Italy: Action taken: YES; Action completed: YES; Completion date: 

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

Netherlands: Action taken: ; Action completed: ; Completion date: 

Not applicable. 

Poland: Action taken: ; Action completed: ; Completion date: 

This observation does not include any specific reservations against Poland. 

94 

 
 
 
Emilia-Romagna, Lombardy and 
Tuscany),  Cyprus,  Hungary,  the 
Netherlands,  Poland,  Romania, 
Slovenia,  Finland,  Sweden  and 
the United Kingdom (England). 

Romania: Action taken: YES- AMPOPAM (Managing Authority for the Operational Programme for Fisheries and 
Maritime Affairs); Action completed: NO; Completion date: 

AMPOPAM:  ECA  (the  European  Court  of  Auditors)  carried  out  an  audit  mission  for  the  Statement  of  Assurance  for 
financial year 2015 between 18 and 22 January 2016. 

Slovenia: Action taken: ; Action completed: ; Completion date: 

The ECA revision for transactions of EAGF, completed in October 2015 (document PF-7387) did not reveal any errors 
or deviation on the reference sample. The ECA has sent out an oficial letter, regarding the completed revision, on 16th 
December2015 (document NR1065679SL01-15PP-7387). The MAFF or the AAMRD didn’t have to adopt any remedial 
measures. 

Paragraph 
7.8(a) - 
footnote 10 

Annex  1.1  sets  out  the  key 
elements  of  our  audit  approach 
and  methodology.  For  the  audit 
of 
the 
following  specific  points  should 
be noted: 

resources’, 

‘Natural 

for 

transactions 

(a)  We  examined  a  sample  of 
180  transactions  for  EAGF  and 
‘Rural 
179 
development, 
environment, 
climate  action  and  fisheries’  as 
defined in Annex 1.1, paragraph 
7. Each sample is designed to be 
representative  of  the  range  of 
spending 
the  MFF 
under 
heading  for  each  of  the  two 
specific assessments (8). In 2015 
the  EAGF  sample  consisted  of 
transactions  from  18  Member 

Sweden: Action taken: NO; Action completed: ; Completion date: 

This observation does not require Sweden to take action. 

United Kingdom: Action taken: NO; Action completed: NO; Completion date: n/a 

This confirms that the UK was visited as part of the ECA audit programme. 

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

There were no ECA audit findings (for 10 sample elements) regarding EAFRD expenditure for 2015; the audit sample 
was error free. 

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

No comment, no specific finding. 

Finland: Action taken: NO; Action completed: NO; Completion date: 

France: Action taken: OUI; Action completed: OUI FEAGA, NON FEADER; Completion date: 

cf. réponse au chapitre 1 observation 2. 

Germany: Action taken: ; Action completed: ; Completion date: 

The Commission already has all the information at its disposal; see Annex II. 

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

Factual finding that does not require action. 

Italy: Action taken: YES; Action completed: YES; Completion date: 

The  enclosed  replies  (see  Annex  II)  to  the  European  Court  of  Auditors  contain  counter-arguments  concerning  the 

95 

 
 
(9).  For 

States 
the  second 
specific  assessment  the  sample 
consisted of 159 transactions for 
rural  development  and  20  other 
transactions 
including 
environment,  climate  action  and 
fisheries from 17 Member States 
(10). 

findings on the action of the paying agencies. 

Lithuania: Action taken: YES; Action completed: ; Completion date: 

See individual observations for answers. 

Poland: Action taken: ; Action completed: ; Completion date: 

This observation does not include any specific reservations against Poland. 

Portugal: Action taken: ; Action completed: ; Completion date: 

Belgium 

(Bavaria, 

(10) 
(Wallonia), 
Bulgaria,  the  Czech  Republic, 
Germany 
Lower 
Saxony-Bremen  and  Rhineland-
Palatinate),  Greece, 
Spain 
(Andalusia,  Castilla-La  Mancha 
and  Galicia),  France  (Burgundy 
and  mainland),  Italy  (Apulia, 
Campania, 
rural 
network programme and Sicily), 
Lithuania,  Hungary,  Austria, 
Poland,  Portugal 
(mainland), 
Romania,  Slovakia,  Finland  and 
the  United  Kingdom  (England 
and  Scotland).  The  sample  also 
included 
transactions 
under direct management. 

National 

eight 

Paragraph 
7.8(b) - 
footnote 11 

Annex  1.1  sets  out  the  key 
elements  of  our  audit  approach 
and  methodology.  For  the  audit 
the 
of 
following  specific  points  should 
be noted: 

resources’, 

‘Natural 

(b) We assessed selected internal 
control  systems  through  a  desk 
review of 24 Commission audits 
the 
covering 

the  EAGF  and 

Nothing relevant to report.   

Romania: Action taken: YES- AMPOPAM (Managing Authority for the Operational Programme for Fisheries and 
Maritime Affairs); Action completed: NO; Completion date: 

AMPOPAM:  ECA  (the  European  Court  of  Auditors)  carried  out  an  audit  mission  for  the  Statement  of  Assurance  for 
financial year 2015 between 18 and 22 January 2016. 

Slovakia: Action taken: ; Action completed: ; Completion date: 

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

United Kingdom: Action taken: NO; Action completed: NO; Completion date: n/a 

This confirms that the UK was visited as part of the ECA audit programme. 

Finland: Action taken: NO; Action completed: NO; Completion date:- 

Germany: Action taken: ; Action completed: ; Completion date: 

The Commission already has all the information at its disposal; see Annex II. 

Lithuania: Action taken: YES; Action completed: ; Completion date: 

See individual observations for answers. 

United Kingdom: Action taken: NO; Action completed: NO; Completion date: n/a 

This confirms that the UK was visited as part of the ECA audit programme. 

96 

 
 
EAFRD. We complemented this 
work by reperforming six of the 
the 
Commission’s  audits 
Member States concerned (11). 

in 

(11) Spain (Catalonia), Germany 
(Schleswig-Holstein),  Finland, 
Lithuania, Malta, UK (Northern-
Ireland). 

Annex  1.1  sets  out  the  key 
elements  of  our  audit  approach 
and  methodology.  For  the  audit 
of 
the 
following  specific  points  should 
be noted: 

resources’, 

‘Natural 

Paragraph 
7.8(b) - 
footnote 13 

Romania: Action taken: YES- AMPOPAM (Managing Authority for the Operational Programme for Fisheries and 
Maritime Affairs); Action completed: NO; Completion date: 

AMPOPAM:  ECA  (the  European  Court  of  Auditors)  carried  out  an  audit  mission  for  the  Statement  of  Assurance  for 
financial year 2015 between 18 and 22 January 2016. 

in 

the  EAGF  and 

(b) We assessed selected internal 
control  systems  through  a  desk 
review of 24 Commission audits 
covering 
the 
EAFRD. We complemented this 
work by reperforming six of the 
the 
Commission’s  audits 
Member  States  concerned  (11). 
We  performed  additional  audit 
work in these six Member States 
limited  number  of 
for 
riskprone  areas  relating  to  the 
EAGF  and  the  EAFRD,  as  well 
as  for  cross-compliance  (12). 
five 
We 
Commission  audits  covering  the 
common  fisheries  policy,  and 
reperformed one (13). 

reviewed 

also 

a 

(13) In Romania. 

97 

 
 
Figure 7.4 

Example  of  irregular  payments 
due  to  incorrect  eligibility  data 
in the LPIS. 

Greece: Action taken: ; Action completed: ; Completion date: 

OPEKEPE  (Greek  paying  agency)  –  Special  Department  for  the  Rural  Development  Plan  (RDP):  the  action  plan 
implemented by Greece for the eligibility of permanent pasture  – as referred to in figure 7.4  – began in 2012 and was 
completed in 2014. However, within the framework of updating the LPIS, which is a continuous process, the eligibility 
percentages are also updated (pro-rata) for the areas of permanent pasture and, of course, this is done in accordance with 
the relevant rules for the 2014-2020 period. 

Italy: Action taken: YES; Action completed: YES; Completion date: 

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

Spain: Action taken: YES; Action completed: YES; Completion date: 31/12/2015 

In  the  2015  period  of  allocation  of  basic  payment  entitlements,  in  Spain,  the  Autonomous  Communities  subject  to 
improvement  of  the  CAP  2013  (Andalucía,  Asturias,  Cantabria,    Castilla  La  Mancha,  Castilla  y  León,  Extremadura, 
Madrid, Murcia, La Rioja and Valencia) implemented a CAP-2015 based on three factors (slope, soil and penetrability of 
vegetation) as a fundamental part of the Action Plan on Pastures (Article 41 of Regulation No 1306/2014), implemented 
by the European Commission to ensure that the eligibility of wooded and shrub pasture areas was reduced in line with 
EU regulations, thereby guaranteeing that basic payment entitlements were correctly allocated in 2015.  

The CAP 2015 is an improved automatic eligibility coefficient that has  significantly increased the precision of the soil 
cover by discounting a larger number of unproductive areas. It also includes an additional vegetation penetrability factor 
limiting the eligibility of areas with a high density of shrubs or woods. (This penetrability factor was estimated using the 
LiDAR airborne technology, based on the use of on-board sensors which act as transmitters and receivers of laser pulses. 
This  makes  it  possible  to  obtain  the  reflection  point  coordinates  of  the  land  or  vegetation  and  determine  the  height, 
density  and  structure  of  the  vegetation  with  digital  models.)  The  Action  Plan,  which  included  11  specific  actions  to 
reduce  eligibility  and  7  additional  measures  to  update  the  LPIS,  was  monitored  strictly  by  the  European  Commission. 
This monitoring was carried out by sending indicators and information bi-monthly and holding three audits organised by 
Unit J3 of DG Agriculture in December 2014, March 2015 and March 2016. In this last mission, AA/2016/032, which 
took place on 1 to 4 March 2016, the Commission noted in its conclusions that the CAP-2015 methodology was rigorous 
and trustworthy and that it accurately reflected the eligibility of permanent pasture in Spain, although the Commission 
may deem it appropriate for the methodology to continue to be updated in future. 

We would stress that the automatic CAP-2015 data were subject to an exhaustive quality and statistical validity check by 
the autonomous communities in June-October 2015, including both photointerpretation studies and numerous on-the-spot 
inspections. As a result of the implementation of the automatic CAP-2015 based on three factors and the implementation 
of its quality and statistical validity checks, the figures for eligibility of permanent pasture in Spain, as indicated in the 
Court of Auditors’ Report, decreased from 18.5 million hectares in 2013 to 6.4 million hectares in 2016. 

98 

 
 
COM reply 
to Figure 7.4 

Example  of  irregular  payments 
due  to  incorrect  eligibility  data 
in the LPIS. 

United Kingdom: Action taken: YES; Action completed: NO; Completion date: n/a 

These issues are addressed by the English Authorities’ Land Parcel Identification System action plan, which is on-going 
and monitored by the Commission. 

Greece: Action taken: ; Action completed: ; Completion date: 

OPEKEPE  (Greek  paying  agency)  –  Special  Department  for  the  Rural  Development  Plan  (RDP):  the  action  plan 
implemented by Greece for the eligibility of permanent pasture  – as referred to in figure 7.4  – began in 2012 and was 
completed in 2014. However, within the framework of updating the LPIS, which is a continuous process, the eligibility 
percentages are also updated (pro-rata) for the areas of permanent pasture and, of course, this is done in accordance with 
the relevant rules for the 2014-2020 period. 

Spain: Action taken: YES; Action completed: YES; Completion date: 31/12/2015 

In  the  2015  period  of  allocation  of  basic  payment  entitlements,  in  Spain,  the  Autonomous  Communities  subject  to 
improvement  of  the  CAP  2013  (Andalucía,  Asturias,  Cantabria,    Castilla  La  Mancha,  Castilla  y  León,  Extremadura, 
Madrid, Murcia, La Rioja and Valencia) implemented a CAP-2015 based on three factors (slope, soil and penetrability of 
vegetation) as a fundamental part of the Action Plan on Pastures (Article 41 of Regulation No 1306/2014), implemented 
by the European Commission to ensure that the eligibility of wooded and shrub pasture areas was reduced in line with 
EU regulations, thereby guaranteeing that basic payment entitlements were correctly allocated in 2015.  

The CAP 2015 is an improved automatic eligibility coefficient that has significantly increased the precision of the soil 
cover by discounting a larger number of unproductive areas. It also includes an additional vegetation penetrability factor 
limiting the eligibility of areas with a high density of shrubs or woods. (This penetrability factor was estimated using the 
LiDAR airborne technology, based on the use of on-board sensors which act as transmitters and receivers of laser pulses. 
This  makes  it  possible  to  obtain  the  reflection  point  coordinates  of  the  land  or  vegetation  and  determine  the  height, 
density  and  structure  of  the  vegetation  with  digital  models.)  The  Action  Plan,  which  included  11  specific  actions  to 
reduce  eligibility  and  7  additional  measures  to  update  the  LPIS,  was  monitored  strictly  by  the  European  Commission. 
This monitoring was carried out by sending indicators and information bi-monthly and holding three audits organised by 
Unit J3 of DG Agriculture in December 2014, March 2015 and March 2016. In this last mission, AA/2016/032, which 
took place on 1 to 4 March 2016, the Commission noted in its conclusions that the CAP-2015 methodology was rigorous 
and trustworthy and that it accurately reflected the eligibility of permanent pasture in Spain, although the Commission 
may deem it appropriate for the methodology to continue to be updated in future. 

We would stress that the automatic CAP-2015 data were subject to an exhaustive quality and statistical validity check by 
the autonomous communities in June-October 2015, including both photointerpretation studies and numerous on-the-spot 
inspections. As a result of the implementation of the automatic CAP-2015 based on three factors and the implementation 
of its quality and statistical validity checks, the figures for eligibility of permanent pasture in Spain, as indicated in the 
Court of Auditors’ Report, decreased from 18.5 million hectares in 2013 to 6.4 million hectares in 2016. 

99 

 
 
United Kingdom: Action taken: YES; Action completed: NO; Completion date: n/a 

These issues are addressed by the English Authorities’ Land Parcel Identification System action plan, which is on-going 
and monitored by the Commission. 

Figure 7.5 

Example  of  national  eligibility 
criteria  not  complying  with  EU 
legislation. 

France: Action taken: OUI; Action completed: OUI; Completion date: 29/04/2016 (pour la campagne PAC 2015) 

Une photo interprétation systématique (y compris visites rapides) de l’intégralité du territoire national a été réalisée dans 
le cadre du plan d’actions FEAGA, évoqué par la Commission, pour les ilots ayant fait l’objet d’une demande d’aide. Ce 
plan d’actions a duré trois ans et est achevé depuis le 2/09/2016. 

COM reply 
to Figure 7.5 

Example  of  national  eligibility 
criteria  not  complying  with  EU 
legislation. 

France: Action taken: OUI; Action completed: OUI; Completion date: 29/04/2016 (pour la campagne PAC 2015) 

Une photo interprétation systématique (y compris visites rapides) de l’intégralité du territoire national a été réalisée dans 
le cadre du plan d’actions FEAGA, évoqué par la Commission, pour les ilots ayant fait l’objet d’une demande d’aide. Ce 
plan d’actions a duré trois ans et est achevé depuis le 2/09/2016. 

Figure 7.7 

Example 
expenditure or activity. 

of 

ineligible 

Germany: Action taken: ; Action completed: ; Completion date: 

The Commission already has all the information at its disposal; see Annex II. 

Italy: Action taken: YES; Action completed: YES; Completion date: 

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

Poland: Action taken: ; Action completed: ; Completion date: 

The  information  does  not  provide  any  specific  example  of  an  eligibility  error  in  Poland,  and  consequently,  it  is 
impossible to respond to specific allegations raised by the ECA. General clarifications relating to, for example, eligibility 
errors are provided in the answer to question 1.1 in Annex III. 

Romania: Action taken: YES- AFIR (Financing Agency for Rural Investments); Action completed: NO; Completion date: 

The  amounts  wrongly  paid  to  farmers  have  been  recalculated.  An  audit  mission  has  been  initiated  by  the  EC  under 
inquiry  number  RD2/  2016/  031/  RO, for  which  the  bilateral  meeting  of  06  September  2016  took place.  Based  on  the 
comments  in  the  Minutes  of  the  bilateral  meeting,  the  Romanian  authorities  will  send  additional  information  by  23 
November  2016.  Subsequently,  the  conciliation  meeting  will  take  place,  further  to  which  EC  auditors  will  submit  the 
final conclusion. 

100 

 
 
 
COM reply 
to Figure 7.7 

Example 
expenditure or activity. 

of 

ineligible 

Romania: Action taken: YES- AFIR (Financing Agency for Rural Investments); Action completed: NO; Completion date: 

The  amounts  wrongly  paid  to  farmers  have  been  recalculated.  An  audit  mission  has  been  initiated  by  the  EC  under 
inquiry  number  RD2/  2016/  031/  RO, for  which  the  bilateral  meeting  of  06  September  2016  took place.  Based  on  the 
comments  in  the  Minutes  of  the  bilateral  meeting,  the  Romanian  authorities  will  send  additional  information  by  23 
November  2016.  Subsequently,  the  conciliation  meeting  will  take  place,  further  to  which  EC  auditors  will  submit  the 
final conclusion. 

Figure 7.8 

Example  of  non-compliance 
with public procurement rules. 

Germany: Action taken: ; Action completed: ; Completion date: 

The Commission already has all the information at its disposal; see Annex II. 

Greece: Action taken: ; Action completed: ; Completion date: 

OPEKEPE  (the  Greek  paying  agency)  –  Special  department  for  the  RDP:  the  replies  and  the  actions  that  have  been 
undertaken concerning the observations on weaknesses in public procurement have been described comprehensively in 
the  relevant  points  of  Annex  ΙΙ  (see  PF  7362  and  the  specific  observations  under  number  15.P.NR2.1516-02  and 
15.P.NR2.1516-05 ). 

Italy: Action taken: YES; Action completed: YES; Completion date: 

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

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

AFIR: A debt has been acknowledged for the project verified by the ECA, and the debt recovery procedure in ongoing.  
We attach the Action plan for the reduction of the error rate (the 5th follow-up) describing the actions taken by AFIR in 
relation to public procurement. 

COM reply 
to Figure 7.8 

Example  of  non-compliance 
with public procurement rules. 

Italy: Action taken: YES; Action completed: YES; Completion date: 

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

Paragraph 
7.32 - 
footnote 31 

To check that the Commission’s 
conformity audits complied with 
international  auditing  standards 
(28)  and  the  main  regulatory 
provisions,  we  carried  out  desk 
reviews  of  a  sample  of  24  (29) 

Finland: Action taken: NO; Action completed: NO; Completion date: 

Germany: Action taken: ; Action completed: ; Completion date: 

The Commission already has all the information at its disposal; see Annex II. 

Lithuania: Action taken: YES; Action completed: ; Completion date: 

101 

 
 
See individual observations for answers. 

United Kingdom: Action taken: NO; Action completed: NO; Completion date: N/A 

This confirms that the UK (NI) was visited as part of the ECA audit programme. 

out  of  120  conformity  audits 
(30)  reported  by  DG  AGRI  in 
2015.  We  also  re-performed  six 
of these 24 audits (31).  

(Schleswig-
(31)  Germany 
(Catalonia), 
Holstein),  Spain 
Lithuania,  Malta,  Finland,  UK 
(Northern Ireland). 

Figure 7.9 

Example  of 
found concerning the LPIS. 

the  weaknesses 

United Kingdom: Action taken: YES; Action completed: NO; Completion date: n/a 

These findings are being addressed as part of the Northern Ireland Authorities’ ongoing LPIS refresh programme, which 
is monitored by the EU Commission. 

COM reply 
to Figure 7.9 

Example  of 
found concerning the LPIS. 

the  weaknesses 

United Kingdom: Action taken: YES; Action completed: NO; Completion date: n/a 

These findings are being addressed as part of the Northern Ireland Authorities’ ongoing LPIS refresh programme, which 
is monitored by the EU Commission. 

Paragraph 
7.47 

to 

on 

checks 

We  found  deficiencies,  mainly 
relating 
the  reliability  of 
control  statistics  and  sampling, 
in  five  out  of  the  six  Member 
found 
visited.  We 
States 
problems 
incorrect 
(e.g. 
calculation  of  sanctions  or  lack 
certain 
of 
requirements)  in  13  of  the  63 
control 
reviewed. 
Moreover,  in  Lithuania  and  the 
UK (Northern Ireland) in four of 
the  24  control  reports  sampled 
the  sanctions  were  not  correctly 
included in the control statistics. 
We give another example of the 
deficiencies  we 
in 
Figure 7.10. 

identified 

reports 

Lithuania: Action taken: YES; Action completed: YES; Completion date: 15/07/2016 

The 2016 cross-compliance control statistics were compiled without grouping the management requirements together. 

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

Northern  Irish  Authorities  have  taken  steps  to  ensure  the  accuracy  of  the  statistical  returns  it  sends  to  the  European 
Commission. 

102 

 
 
Figure 7.10 

Example  of  insufficient  cross-
compliance checks. 

COM reply 
to Figure 7.10 

Example  of  insufficient  cross-
compliance checks. 

Lithuania: Action taken:YES; Action completed: YES; Completion date: 10/11/2016 

Order No 3D-662 of the Minister for Agriculture of the Republic of Lithuania approving the management requirements 
for  agricultural  activities  and  the  requirements  for  the  use  of  fertilisers  and  plant  protection  products  and  appointing 
management  control  authorities  was  approved  on  10 November  2016.  It  lays  down  the  lower  threshold  for  verifying 
requirements  with  regard  to  the  implementation  of  the  Nitrates  Directive,  so  application  and  verification  of  the 
requirements  will  affect  significantly  more  applicants,  both  those  keeping  livestock  and  those  using  fertiliser  on  their 
holdings. 

Lithuania: Action taken:YES; Action completed: YES; Completion date: 10/11/2016 

Order No 3D-662 of the Minister for Agriculture of the Republic of Lithuania approving the management requirements 
for agricultural activities and the requirements for the use of fertilisers and plant protection products and appointing 
management control authorities was approved on 10 November 2016. It lays down the lower threshold for verifying 
requirements with regard to the implementation of the Nitrates Directive, so application and verification of the 
requirements will affect significantly more applicants, both those keeping livestock and those using fertiliser on their 
holdings. 

Paragraph 
7.49 

Our  examination  of  systems  in 
this  area  focused  on  audits 
carried  out  by  the  Commission 
(DG  MARE).  We  carried  out  a 
desk  review  of  a  sample  of  five 
of  the  Commission's  conformity 
audits. 
Commission 
reported  significant  weaknesses 
in  the  systems  of  two  (Italy  and 
Romania)  out  of 
five 
the 
Member States concerned. 

The 

Figure 7.11 

Procurement 
Romania. 

deficiencies 

in 

Romania: Action taken: YES- AMPOP (Managing Authority for the Operational Programme for Fisheries); Action 
completed: NO; Completion date: 

AMPOP: The irregularity procedure has been initiated for all procurement procedures included in the report of the above-
mentioned  audit  mission.  The  2  public  procurement  procedures  are  being  investigated  by  the  Ministry  of  Finance  – 
DGIEF (Directorate-General for Economic and Financial Inspection). 

For the period 2014-2020, the selection process has been revised pursuant to the issues included in the audit reports of 

103 

 
 
 
COM reply 
to Figure 7.11 

Procurement 
Romania. 

deficiencies 

in 

Romania: Action taken: YES- AMPOP (Managing Authority for the Operational Programme for Fisheries); Action 
completed: NO; Completion date: 

DG-MARE. 

AMPOP: The irregularity procedure has been initiated for all procurement procedures included in the report of the above-
mentioned  audit  mission.  The  2  public  procurement  procedures  are  being  investigated  by  the  Ministry  of  Finance  – 
DGIEF (Directorate-General for Economic and Financial Inspection). 

For the period 2014-2020, the selection process has been revised pursuant to the issues included in the audit reports of 
DG-MARE. 

Paragraph 
7.52 

COM reply 
to paragraph 
7.52 

On  the  basis  of  the  24  audits 
which it carried out in 2014 and 
2015  and  which  were  finalised 
at  the  time  of  our  audit,  DG 
MARE  proposed  two  financial 
corrections.  Our  review  of  a 
sample  of  five  of  these  audits 
revealed  that  in  two  cases  (Italy 
and  Romania) 
financial 
corrections  did  not  address  all 
the 
the  deficiencies  affecting 
internal 
managing  authorities’ 
control systems. 

the 

The  Commission 
proposes 
financial  corrections  where  it 
identifies 
significant 
deficiencies.  It  considers  that 
appropriate  levels  of  correction 
were  applied  for  both  Italy  and 
Romania  based  on 
its  own 
analysis. However, for Romania, 
it  will  assess 
the  need  for 
additional  corrections  based  on 
the Court’s findings. 

104 

 
 
 
 
Paragraph 
7.59 

Paragraph 
7.63 

For  EAFRD,  the  Commission 
almost  tripled  the  average  level 
of error reported by the Member 
States of 1,78 % to calculate the 
adjusted  error  rate  of  4,99  %. 
The  Commission  has  adjusted 
the  error  rates  reported  by  56 
paying  agencies  out  of  72 
declaring  EAFRD  expenditure. 
We  consider  the  adjusted  error 
rate  of  4,99  %  to  be  broadly  in 
line  with  our  estimated  level  of 
error.  The  Commission  has  in 
the 
recent  years 
number  of  its  conformity  audits 
of EAFRD expenditure and also 
launched 
audits 
measures/paying 
targeting 
agencies  with  similar  risks.  An 
example  is  an  audit  of  public 
procurement  which  contributed 
to  overall  reservations  being 
made for Germany and Spain. 

horizontal 

increased 

for 

letters 

DG  MARE  sent  out  three  pre-
three 
closure 
operational  programs  proposing 
to  recover  an  amount  of  53,6 
million  euro.  This  material 
amount  is  not  disclosed  in  the 
AAR.  The  AAR 
includes 
reservations  for  five  Member 
States, 
including  Romania, 
which  is  in  line  with  our  audit 
findings.  Our  audit  did  not  call 
into  question  the  calculation  of 

Germany: Action taken: ; Action completed: ; Completion date: 

Due  to  serious  formal  and  methodological  shortcomings,  Germany  finds  the  new  audit  approach  and  its  conclusions 
unacceptable. 

Romania: Action taken: YES (AMPOP); Action completed: YES; Completion date: 29.06.2016 

In  Payment  Application  17  of  29  June  2016,  ACP  (the  Certifying  and  Paying  Authority)  temporarily  decertified  the 
amount of EUR  1,295,195.70 (public contribution). 

105 

 
 
 
Figure 7.13 

the error rates by DG MARE. 

checking 
of 
Examples 
reasonabless  of  costs  for  the 
modernisation  of  agricultural 
holdings. 

COM reply 
to Figure 7.13 

Examples 
checking 
of 
reasonabless  of  costs  for  the 
modernisation  of  agricultural 
holdings. 

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

for 

the  Rural  Development  Programme  2014-2020.  Under 

Ministry  of  Agriculture  and  Rural  Development:  The  reasonableness  of  the  pricing  of  individual  items  in  civil 
engineering investments will be checked by means of a software tool via a publicly accessible price database prior to the 
conclusion  of  the  Grant  Agreement;  this  will  also  be  included  in  the  manual  of  the  Programme  Monitoring  and 
Evaluation  Department 
inspected  Project 
No 110ZV1302565,  on  the  basis  of  Expert  Opinions 227/2015  and  96/2015,  commissioned  to  determine  the  general 
value of silage troughs, it was demonstrated that the production price had not been unreasonable. The ‘concrete’ item was 
higher because multiple items (34) had been merged in the item ‘Concrete of foundation slabs free of C 25/30’ under the 
‘Foundations’ part. Furthermore, after an examination of the case by the Agricultural Paying Agency, no infringement of 
the  Public Procurement  Act  was  demonstrated  in  relation  to  a  conflict  of  interest  identified  by  the  European  Court  of 
Auditors.  For  the  reasons  outlined  above,  as  the  Agricultural  Paying  Agency  does  not  possess  relevant  underlying 
documentation reliably demonstrating an infringement of legally binding national and EU regulations and the conditions 
for the granting of a contribution/aid from the final beneficiary, it did not launch the recovery of financial resources from 
the final beneficiary. All of the Agricultural Paying Agency’s explanations and opinions were sent to the European Court 
of Auditors. The investigation into the project involved an ad hoc meeting on 30 of March 2016 between representatives 
of  the  Agricultural  Paying  Agency  and  representatives  of  OLAF  who  had  initiated  the  investigation  into  Project 
No 110ZV1302565.  Once  the  results  of  this  inspection  have  been  received,  the  Agricultural  Paying  Agency  will  take 
further relevant steps. The case remains recorded as open in the Agricultural Paying Agency’s Action Plan to remedy the 
findings of audits and inspections. 

the 

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

for 

the  Rural  Development  Programme  2014-2020.  Under 

Ministry  of  Agriculture  and  Rural  Development:  The  reasonableness  of  the  pricing  of  individual  items  in  civil 
engineering investments will be checked by means of a software tool via a publicly accessible price database prior to the 
conclusion  of  the  Grant  Agreement;  this  will  also  be  included  in  the  manual  of  the  Programme  Monitoring  and 
Evaluation  Department 
inspected  Project 
No 110ZV1302565,  on  the  basis  of  Expert  Opinions 227/2015  and  96/2015,  commissioned  to  determine  the  general 
value of silage troughs, it was demonstrated that the production price had not been unreasonable. The ‘concrete’ item was 
higher because multiple items (34) had been merged in the item ‘Concrete of foundation slabs free of C 25/30’ under the 
‘Foundations’ part. Furthermore, after an examination of the case by the Agricultural Paying Agency, no infringement of 
the  Public Procurement  Act  was  demonstrated  in  relation  to  a  conflict  of  interest  identified  by  the  European  Court  of 
Auditors.  For  the  reasons  outlined  above,  as  the  Agricultural  Paying  Agency  does  not  possess  relevant  underlying 
documentation reliably demonstrating an infringement of legally binding national and EU regulations and the conditions 
for the granting of a contribution/aid from the final beneficiary, it did not launch the recovery of financial resources from 
the final beneficiary. All of the Agricultural Paying Agency’s explanations and opinions were sent to the European Court 

the 

106 

 
 
of Auditors. The investigation into the project involved an ad hoc meeting on 30 of March 2016 between representatives 
of  the  Agricultural  Paying  Agency  and  representatives  of  OLAF  who  had  initiated  the  investigation  into  Project 
No 110ZV1302565.  Once  the  results  of  this  inspection  have  been  received,  the  Agricultural  Paying  Agency  will  take 
further relevant steps. The case remains recorded as open in the Agricultural Paying Agency’s Action Plan to remedy the 
findings of audits and inspections. 

Figure 7.14 

Example  of  a  project  which 
included non-essential items. 

Italy: Action taken: YES; Action completed: YES; Completion date: 

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

Figure 7.15 

Examples  of 
selection. 

targeting 

and 

Hungary: Action taken: NO; Action completed: ; Completion date: 
The  comment  pertains  to  the  application  for  support  submitted  for  the  1st  target  area  of  the  legal  title  ‘purchasing 
technological  equipment  for  the  purposes  of  modernisation  (TBB)’  based  on  Decree 116/2013  of  the  Minister  for 
Agriculture and Rural Development. 

Based on Article 4(6)(a) of the aid decree, a score of at least of 15 points out of 30 had to be attained for purchasing high-
value machinery. As a result, high professional conditions for eligibility were set that ensured that applicants which met 
the criteria are suitable for the comprehensive implementation of the aid’s target.  

Stemming from the above, proposals could only be submitted by suitable clients who also met the stringent expectations 
pertaining  to  keeping  animals  (requirements  checked  by  other  authorities,  such  as  the  National  Food  Chain  Safety 
Office). 

If entitled clients met the criteria for eligibility, they also met several conditions for selection.  

Notice 308/2013 of the MA are governing:  

“proceeding in my competence as  managing  authority on the  basis of Article 14(1)(cd) of Act XVII  of 2007 on certain 
issues of procedures in relation to support for agricultural, rural development and fisheries and to other measures and 
Article 7(3) of Decree 116/2013 of 12 December of the Minister for Rural Development, as of 8:00 p.m. on 19 December 
2013, I hereby suspend the period for submitting applications for aid on the basis of Decree 116/2013 of 12 December of 
the Minister for Rural Development for high-value purchases in area 1 due to a depletion of funds.” 

The  selection  procedure  was  thus  based  on  which  of  the  undertakings  with  the  minimum  number  of  points  submitted 

107 

 
 
 
 
 
COM reply 
to Figure 7.15 

Examples  of 
selection. 

targeting 

and 

their applications by the deadline set by legislation (and the MA Notice). 

Italy: Action taken: YES ; Action completed: YES; Completion date: 

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

Hungary: Action taken: NO; Action completed: ; Completion date: 
The  comment  pertains  to  the  application  for  support  submitted  for  the  1st  target  area  of  the  legal  title  ‘purchasing 
technological  equipment  for  the  purposes  of  modernisation  (TBB)’  based  on  Decree 116/2013  of  the  Minister  for 
Agriculture and Rural Development. 

Based on Article 4(6)(a) of the aid decree, a score of at least of 15 points out of 30 had to be attained for purchasing high-
value machinery. As a result, high professional conditions for eligibility were set that ensured that applicants which met 
the criteria are suitable for the comprehensive implementation of the aid’s target.  

Stemming from the above, proposals could only be submitted by suitable clients who also met the stringent expectations 
pertaining  to  keeping  animals  (requirements  checked  by  other  authorities,  such  as  the  National  Food  Chain  Safety 
Office). 

If entitled clients met the criteria for eligibility, they also met several conditions for selection.  

Notice 308/2013 of the MA are governing:  

“proceeding in my competence as  managing authority on the basis of Article 14(1)(cd) of Act XVII  of 2007 on certain 
issues of procedures in relation to support for agricultural, rural development and fisheries and to other measures and 
Article 7(3) of Decree 116/2013 of 12 December of the Minister for Rural Development, as of 8:00 p.m. on 19 December 
2013, I hereby suspend the period for submitting applications for aid on the basis of Decree 116/2013 of 12 December of 
the Minister for Rural Development for high-value purchases in area 1 due to a depletion of funds.” 

The selection procedure was thus based on which of the undertakings with the minimum number of points submitted 
their applications by the deadline set by legislation (and the MA Notice). 

Figure 7.16 

Examples  of 
priorities. 

links 

to  EU 

Italy: Action taken: YES ; Action completed: YES; Completion date: 

The enclosed replies (see Annex II) to the European Court of Auditors contain counter-arguments concerning the 

108 

 
 
 
 
 
findings on the action of the paying agencies. 

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

In the opinion of Poland, the European Commission has no grounds to suspend payments within the system of supporting 
groups of fruit and vegetable manufacturers as Poland is in the course of implementing the Corrective Action Plan within 
the mechanism of financial support for the initially recognised groups of fruit and vegetable manufacturers. 

Annex 7.2 

of 

Follow-up 
recommendations  for 
resources'. 

previous 
'Natural 

of 

2013  -  Recommendation  2:  the 
that 
Commission  ensures 
the 
reinforcement 
assurance 
procedure  is  effectively  applied 
in  order  to  enhance  the  quality 
and  comparability  of  the  work 
performed  by  the  audit  bodies 
and that remedial action is taken 
the  unjustified 
in  respect  of 
reduction 
Italian 
by 
authorities  of  the  on-the-spot 
inspection  rate  (see  paragraphs 
3.30 to 3.35). 

the 

COM reply 
to Annex 7.2 

2013  -  Recommendation  3:  the 
Commission  actively  monitors 
remedial 
the  application  of 
to 
actions  with 
the 
deficiencies 
control 
in 
system  applicable  to  EU  aid  for 
producer  groups  in  Poland  (see 
paragraphs 3.36 to 3.38). 

regard 
the 

The  Commission  considers  the 
recommendation 
as 
implemented  in  most  respects. 
The  reinforcement  of  assurance 
procedure as such does not exist 
anymore.  The  Commission  has 
the 
introduced  guidelines  for 
certification  bodies  in  order  to 
provide  a  reliable  basis  for  the 

109 

 
 
 
 
bodies 

legality 

assessment  of 
and 
regularity  of  expenditure.  2015 
was  the  first  year  in  which  the 
certification 
were 
required  to  produce  an  opinion 
on  the  legality  and  regularity  of 
transactions.  The  Commission 
will  build  on  the  experience  of 
year.  Regarding 
this 
first 
specifically 
the  weaknesses 
identified  in  Italy,  the  ongoing 
conformity 
procedure  will 
ensure  that  any  damage  to  the 
EU  financial  interest  will  be 
corrected. 

110 

 
 
 
 
 
CHAPTER 8 – Global Europe and Security and citizenship 

Paragraphs 

Observations in the 2015 
Court's Annual Report 

Member States' replies 

Paragraph 
8.42 - 
footnote 30 

of 

responsibility 

We  performed  a  review  of  the 
main  systems  in  the  field  of 
migration  and  security,  under 
the 
the 
Commission’s  DG  HOME  (28). 
Concerning  direct  management, 
this  included  an  examination  of 
the  Commission’s  systems  for 
grants  and  procurement  (29). 
For  shared  management, 
this 
included  an  examination  (30)  of 
the Commission’s assessment of 
Member  State 
for 
managing SOLID funds. 

systems 

(30)  We  examined  a  sample  of 
ten  systems  audits:  the  External 
Border  Fund 
for  Germany, 
France, Lithuania and Malta; the 
European  Return  Fund 
for 
France and the United Kingdom; 
the  European  Refugee  Fund  for 
Germany 
the  United 
and 
Kingdom;  and 
the  European 
Fund for the integration  of third 
country  nationals  for  Italy  and 
Poland. These programmes were 
selected  from  2011  programmes 
which  had  been  closed  in  2014. 
We 
the 
Commission’s  planning  of  ex 

examined 

also 

France: Action taken: OUI; Action completed: OUI; Completion date: 

Les audits ont conclu à un bon fonctionnement, aucune anomalie n’a été relevée. 

Germany: Action taken: YES; Action completed: YES; Completion date: 31 January 2012 

EU Refugee Fund: The following measures were taken by the competent authority: 

• 

• 

• 

checks on the use made of the funds were speeded up by bringing in external auditors 

the project appraisal forms were revised or redrafted 

in particular, the monitoring system was improved by publishing additional indicators. 

There is no information to indicate that the External Borders Fund in Germany was audited by the ECA in 2015 or in 
previous years. The External Borders Fund was audited once by the ECA in 2012, but Germany was not included in the 
audit. 

Poland: Action taken: ; Action completed: ; Completion date: 

This observation does not include any specific reservations against Poland. 

United Kingdom: Action taken: NO; Action completed: NO; Completion date: n/a 

This confirms which funds were audited during UK visits. 

111 

 
 
 
post  audits  of  cleared  Member 
State annual programmes. 

112 

 
 
 
 
 
ANNEX II – TEMPLATE USED FOR THE MEMBER STATES QUESTIONNAIRE 

European Court of Auditors' 2015 Annual Report 

Member State QUESTIONNAIRE 

Date: ______________________________________ 

Reply from (please indicate the name of the authority responsible for providing the requested information):  

Name of the Authority:   
Contact Person:  
Telephone: 
Email address:   

__________________________________ 
__________________________________ 
__________________________________ 
__________________________________ 

The questionnaire consists of two parts: 

Part A: 

Part B: 

General questions concerning the main chapters of the report covering major spending policy areas of the EU budget (i.e. competitiveness 
for growth and jobs; economic, social and territorial cohesion; natural resources). 

General  comments  by  the  Member  State  concerning  the  2015  Annual  report  or  general  issues  relating  to  the  discharge  procedure  the 
Member State wants to raise.  

113 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Part A: Please reply to the general questions below  

Question 1: 

1. Legality & Regularity 

Questions addressed to all Member States: 

1.1. The 2015 Annual report of the European Court of Auditors (ECA) indicates that: 

For ERDF/CF expenditure a main risk is that beneficiaries declare costs which are ineligible according to national eligibility rules and/or the less 
numerous eligibility provisions in the EU structural funds regulations. ERDF/CF spending is also subject to the generally  applicable EU   internal 
market rules (mainly public procurement rules and State aid). In previous years, non-compliance with EU and/or national public procurement rules 
when awarding contracts has been the main risk to the regularity of ERDF and CF spending (Chapter 6, paragraph 6.5). 

For ESF expenditure, the major risk relates to the intangible nature of the investments in human capital, and the involvement of multiple, often small-
scale, partners in the implementation of projects. These factors can lead to  non-compliance with EU and/or national eligibility rules resulting in 
ineligible costs being accepted by the systems in place (Chapter 6, paragraph 6.6). 

In 
For EAGF expenditure, the main risks relate to direct aid paid for ineligible land or to ineligible beneficiaries (Chapter 7, paragraph  
addition, for Member States' systems related to regularity of EAGF transactions the ECA reports that without calling into question IACS contribution 
in preventing and reducing the levels of error, some of the key control functions that had been examined were affected by weaknesses. These related 
to  the  LPIS,  the  administrative  controls,  the  quality  of  on-the-spot  inspections  and  the  recovery  procedures  for  incorrect  payments  (Chapter  7, 
paragraph 7.41). 

7.6). 

For  EAFRD  expenditure,  the  main  risks  relate  to  ineligible  expenditure  due  to  non-compliance  with  often  complex  rules  (including 
procurement) and eligibility conditions, in particular for investment measures (Chapter 7, paragraph 7.6). In addition, for Member States' systems 
related to regularity of transactions in rural development, the ECA identified deficiencies in administrative checks related  to  eligibility  conditions,  in 
particular those concerning public procurement. These system weaknesses were very similar to those found and reported in previous years. System 
failures are an important cause of the errors detected during transaction testing (Chapter 7, paragraph 7.42). 

In the 2015 Annual report, the ECA reports concrete findings in relation to the above mentioned main risks (Chapters 6 and 7). 

114 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
1.1.1. What are the main root causes in the major EU spending areas (common agricultural policy, regional and urban policy, employment, 
social affairs and inclusion) for the persisting risks and errors pointed out by the ECA in the domain of: 

Not 
relevant 

Relevant 
in some 
respect 

Relevant 
in most 
respect 

Fully 
relevant 

 
 
 

compliance with EU and national eligibility rules, 
compliance with EU and national public procurement legislation, and 
compliance with State aid rules ? 

NB:  In  order  to  develop  the  replies,  the  following  non-exhaustive  list  of  examples  for  root 
causes of legality and regularity errors in EU expenditure may be considered (issues concerning 
the achievement of policy objectives and value added are covered under question 2 here below). 
Therefore, you are kindly invited to mark the extent of relevance of the examples per major EU 
spending  area  (common  agricultural  policy,  regional  and  urban  policy,  employment,  social 
affairs and inclusion) as it is perceived for your country and in addition to develop a narrative 
in your reply to question 1.1.1 here under: 

  number and complexity of rules and gold-plating 

 

incorrect transposition of applicable EU legislation into national laws 

 

failure  to  observe  the  legal  and  procedural  requirements  stemming  from  EU and  national 
legislation and rules 

  sufficient  knowledge  in  applying  procurement  rules  or  State  aid  rules  or  other  applicable 
EU  legislation  and  rules  (including  conditions  and  eligibility  criteria  for  the  rural 
development  measures,  simplified  cost  options,  reasonableness  of  costs,  result-oriented 
agri-environment payments) 

  complex eligibility rules 

  weaknesses in the set of eligibility rules that may lead to potential for circumventing them 

 

insufficient quality and up-date of the Land Parcel Identification System (LPIS) 

115 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  mistakes in the aid applications 

  continued  risks  of  misinterpretation  of  what  is  the  eligible  area  for  the  basic  payment 

scheme  

 

inefficient sanction mechanism for non-compliance or low sanction rate for non-compliance 

  need  of  raising  awareness,  targeted  training,  and,  development  and  delivery  of  detailed 
methodological  support  and  guidance  for  national  and  regional  authorities  and  final 
beneficiaries 

  need of more or better resources and administrative capacity building 

  need  of  an  improved  quality  of  key  aspects  of  the  supervisory  and  control  systems  (better 
design  and/or  performance  of  administrative  checks  and  on-the-spot  controls  and/or 
increase  of  the  effectiveness  of  the  work  carried  out  by  management  verifications,  audit 
authorities, paying agencies and certification bodies) 

  better  use  of  the  information  necessary  to  detect  and  correct  available  in  the  supporting 

documents, as well as at the level of the beneficiary or a national/regional body 

  sufficiently  robust  action  plans  developed  to  address  both  the  causes  of  errors  and  the 

weaknesses in the management and control systems and/or deficiencies in the EU spending 

 

insufficient  introduction  of  changes  by  new  legal  and/or  regulatory  and/or  procedural 
frameworks likely to have a significant impact on the causes of errors 

  need  of  more  initiatives  for  ensuring  a  genuine  simplification  for  beneficiaries  and 

programmes' implementation 

  knowledge and experience sharing, and dissemination of good practices at national and/or 

at EU level on improving widespread weaknesses/deficiencies/errors 

116 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  expected results from actions that will not always be evident in short-term 

1.1.2. What are the main lessons learned while addressing the risks and errors for the EU spending in relation to the following (please consider also 
the lessons learned in the light of the improvements for the current programming period 2014-2020): 

 
 
 

compliance with EU and national eligibility rules, 
compliance with EU and national public procurement legislation, and 
compliance with State aid rules ? 

1.1.3. What are the good practices that have been identified in your Member State, and that can be used as examples of success stories in the areas of 
the following  (please consider success stories that can be promoted under the current programming period 2014-2020 like for instance the use of 
simplified cost options that could be a way to avoid errors by moving from reimbursement of costs incurred to payment by entitlement (i.e. based on 
the fulfilment of some pre-defined conditions)):  

 
 
 

compliance with EU and national eligibility rules, 
compliance with EU and national public procurement legislation, and 
compliance with State aid rules ? 

1.2.  As  in  previous  years,  the  ECA  considers  that  for  a  large  part  of  the  transactions  affected  by  quantifiable  errors,  Member  States'  authorities  had 
sufficient information to prevent or detect and correct the errors before declaring or certifying the expenditure to the Commission  (Chapter 6, paragraph 
6.36 & Chapter 7, paragraphs 7.15 and 7.24). 

1.2.1. What further measures have been implemented or planned in order to enhance the effectiveness of the checks carried out before declaring or 
certifying expenditure to the Commission ? 

1.2.2.  What  further  measures  have  been  implemented  or  planned  in  order  to  enhance  the  effectiveness  of  actions  to  detect  and  correct  errors 
concerning expenditure, which was previously declared or certified to the Commission ? 

1.3.  In  the  2015  Annual  report,  the  ECA  reports  (Chapter  1,  paragraph  1.47)  that  the  audit  results  show  a  strong  relationship  between  the  basis  for 
payment  and  levels  of  error.  The  ECA  continues  to  find  that  reimbursement  spending  is  affected  by  much  higher  levels  of  error  than  spending  on  an 
entitlement basis. 

1.3.1. What action has your Member State taken/planned to take to analyse the risks and estimated level of error in the major EU spending areas 
(common agricultural policy, regional and urban policy, employment, social affairs and inclusion) ? 

117 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
1.3.2.  Do  you  consider  that  there  is  a  relationship  between  the  basis  for  payment  and  levels  of  error  in  the  major  EU  spending  areas  (common 
agricultural policy, regional and urban policy, employment, social affairs and inclusion) ? 

Yes – if "Yes" please describe 
 No – if  "No" please give reasons why not 

Question 2: 

2. Performance of the EU budget 

Questions addressed to all Member States: 

2.1. The 2015 Annual report of the ECA presents the audit work done in relation to the performance related assessment and analysis of the EU budget: 

In particular, the performance analysis (Chapter 3) focused on the Horizon 2020 programme, the strategic and performance framework in  which 
operates, and the links to the Europe 2020 strategy for smart, sustainable and inclusive growth. 

it 

2.1.1. How are the relations between the EU priorities in the context of the Europe 2020 strategy, including Horizon 2020, and the national priorities 
of your Member State linked and do they facilitate focus on performance ? 

2.1.2.  What  measures  have  been  undertaken  to  pursue  synergies  and  complementarities  between  European  structural  and  investment  funds  and 
national programmes ? 

2.2. The 2015 Annual report of the ECA presents also performance related information and conclusions for the main spending policy areas of the EU budget 
in shared management, which are tailored to the specific policy and cover mainly, performance framework, results and indicators. 

The  ECA  presents  its  assessment  on  the  number  of  projects  that  have  fully  or  partially  achieved  their  output  and  result  objectives  (Chapter  6, 
paragraph 6.84). The ECA also indicates that as regards the 2014-2020 programming period, there is no legal requirement in the common provision 
regulation for Member States to define result indicators at project level. Nevertheless, the ECA considers it good practice to define relevant result 
indicators at project level that measure the contribution of the project to the achievement of the objectives set for the priority axis of the operational 
programmes (Chapter 6, paragraph 6.89).  

The ECA continued its work on performance-related assessment of investment projects in the area of rural development. The ECA pointed out that as 
main  performance  issues  the  insufficient  evidence  that  costs  are  reasonable  and  deficiencies  in  targeting  measures  and  selected  projects,  including 

118 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
weak links to Europe 2020 objectives (Chapter 7, paragraphs 7.68 and 7.70). 

2.2.1. What  performance  measurement system has  been  or will  be  established  for the  management  of  European  structural and investment  funds in 
order to: 
 

link EU measures, operations or projects to EU priorities/Europe 2020 objectives and targets. 

2.2.2. What framework has been set-up in your Member State for the management of ESI Funds in order to achieve a  result-oriented system and 
impact of EU projects ? 

2.2.3. Has your Member State taken actions to define or improve result indicators at EU project level ? 

Yes – if " Yes" please describe them 
 No – if  "No" please give reasons why not 

2.2.4. What performance measurement system has been or will be established in order to: 
  monitor the achievement objectives at EU measure, operations or project level 
  monitor the output and result indicators at EU measure, operations or project level 

Question 3: 

3. Follow-up of recommendations formulated by the ECA 

Questions addressed to all Member States: 

3.1.  In  the  2015  Annual  report,  the  ECA  reports  (Chapter  3,  part  3)  the  results  of  the  Court's  audit  on  performance,  including  the  follow-up  of  Court's 
recommendations. The ECA considers that there is a wide variation in the level of formal follow-up and only moderate evidence of changes in national policy 
and practice as a result of its recommendations (Chapter 3, paragraph 3.86). 

3.1.1. Is there a framework or a system for the follow-up of ECA's recommendations which have been addressed to your Member State in Court's 
annual and special reports? How do you monitor and report on progress achieved towards to implementation of Court's recommendations ? 

Yes – if " Yes" please describe 
 No – if  "No" please give reasons why not  

119 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Part B: Please enter any general comments you have concerning the 2015 Annual report 

or general issues relating to the discharge procedure 

120 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
ANNEX III – MEMBER STATES' REPLIES TO QUESTIONS THAT HAVE BEEN INCLUDED IN PART A OF THE QUESTIONNAIRE 

Austria 

Question 1.1.1 

Main  root  causes 
in  the  major  EU 
spending 
areas 
(common 
agricultural 
regional 
policy, 
and  urban  policy, 
employment, 
social  affairs  and 
inclusion)  for  the 
persisting 
risks 
and errors pointed 
out by the ECA. 

NB: In order to develop the replies, the following non-exhaustive list of examples for 
root causes of legality and regularity errors in EU expenditure may be considered 

Not 
relevant 

Relevant 
in some 
respect 

Relevant 
in most 
respect 

Fully 
relevant 

  number and complexity of rules and gold-plating 

 

incorrect transposition of applicable EU legislation into national laws 

 

failure to observe the legal and procedural requirements stemming from 
EU and national legislation and rules 

  sufficient knowledge in applying procurement rules or State aid rules or 
other  applicable  EU  legislation  and  rules  (including  conditions  and 
eligibility  criteria  for  the  rural  development  measures,  simplified  cost 
options,  reasonableness  of  costs,  result-oriented  agri-environment 
payments) 

  complex eligibility rule 

  weaknesses  in  the  set  of  eligibility  rules  that  may  lead  to  potential  for 

circumventing them 

 

insufficient quality and up-date of the Land Parcel Identification System 
(LPIS) 

121 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  mistakes in the aid applications 

  continued risks of misinterpretation of what is the eligible area for the 

basic payment scheme  

 

inefficient sanction mechanism for non-compliance or low sanction rate 
for non-compliance 

  need  of  raising  awareness,  targeted  training,  and,  development  and 
delivery  of  detailed  methodological  support  and  guidance  for  national 
and regional authorities and final beneficiaries 

  need of more or better resources and administrative capacity building 

  need  of  an  improved  quality  of  key  aspects  of  the  supervisory  and 
control  systems  (better  design  and/or  performance  of  administrative 
checks  and  on-the-spot  controls  and/or  increase  of  the  effectiveness  of 
the  work  carried  out  by  management  verifications,  audit  authorities, 
paying agencies and certification bodies) 

  better use of the information necessary to detect and correct available in 
the supporting documents, as well as at the level of the beneficiary or a 
national/regional body 

  sufficiently robust action plans developed to address both the causes of 
errors  and  the  weaknesses  in  the  management  and  control  systems 
and/or deficiencies in the EU spending 

 

insufficient  introduction  of  changes  by  new  legal  and/or  regulatory 
and/or procedural frameworks likely to have a significant impact on the 
causes of errors 

  need  of  more  initiatives  for  ensuring  a  genuine  simplification  for 

beneficiaries and programmes' implementation 

122 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  knowledge and experience sharing, and dissemination of good practices 
improving  widespread 

level  on 

at  national  and/or  at  EU 
weaknesses/deficiencies/errors 

  expected  results  from  actions  that  will  not  always  be  evident  in  short-

term 

Question 1.1.2. 

n/a 

lessons 
Main 
while 
learned 
addressing 
the 
risks  and  errors 
for 
EU 
the 
spending. 

Question 1.1.3. 

n/a 

Good 
practices 
and  examples  of 
success  stories  in 
the 
of 
areas 
compliance  with 
EU  and  national 
rules, 
eligibility 
compliance  with 
EU  and  national 
public 
procurement 
legislation, 
and 
compliance  with 
State aid rules. 

Question 1.2.1. 

Both the types of controls and the role of the MA and CA before declaring expenditure to the European Commission are currently being 
overhauled in connection with the Descriptions of the Management and Control Systems for 2014-2020. Due to the requirement for an 

123 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
annual management declaration by the managing authority, control mechanisms must also be defined. 

Further  measures 
to 
the 
enhance 
effectiveness of the 
checks  carried  out 
declaring 
before 
or 
certifying 
expenditure  to  the 
Commission. 

Question 1.2.2. 

n/a 

Further  measures 
the 
to 
enhance 
of 
effectiveness 
to  detect 
actions 
and  correct  errors 
concerning 
expenditure, which 
previously 
was 
or 
declared 
certified 
the 
to 
Commission. 

Question 1.3.1. 

n/a 

Risk  analysis  and 
estimated  level  of 
error  in  the  major 
EU spending areas 
(common 
agricultural 
policy, 
regional 
and  urban  policy, 
employment, 
social  affairs  and 
inclusion). 

124 

 
 
Yes. 
With regard to agriculture: Area-related measures provide more options for administrative checks before payment. 

No. 
As ESI funds are based on the reimbursement principle, we do not have any experience of expenditure based on payment entitlements. 
That is why Member States cannot provide analyses or comparisons in this area of activity. 

Question 1.3.2. 

Relationship 
between  the  basis 
for  payment  and 
levels  of  error  in 
the  major  EU 
spending 
areas 
(common 
agricultural 
regional 
policy, 
and  urban  policy, 
employment, 
social  affairs  and 
inclusion). 

Question 2.1.1. 

n/a 

Links  between  EU 
the 
in 
priorities 
context 
the 
of 
Europe 2020 
strategy,  including 
Horizon 2020,  and 
national priorities. 

Question 2.1.2. 

n/a 

to 
synergies 

Measures 
pursue 
and 
complementarities 
ESI 
between 
Funds 
and 
national 
programmes . 

125 

 
 
Question 2.2.1. 

With regard to agriculture: there is a link with national provisions. A link at project level would, however, involve more bureaucracy. 

Performance 
measurement 
system  to  link  EU 
measures, 
operations 
projects 
priorities/Europe 
2020 
and targets. 

or 
to  EU 

objectives 

Question 2.2.2. 

With regard to agriculture: national provisions are in line with and take account of the relevant EU provisions. 

Framework for the 
of 
management 
ESI 
in 
Funds 
order  to  achieve  a 
result-oriented 
system  and  impact 
of EU projects. 

Question 2.2.3. 

Yes.  

Member 
State 
actions  to  define 
or  improve  result 
indicators  at  EU 
project level. 

With  regard  to  agriculture:  national  provisions.  With  regard  to  Structural  Funds  programmes:  in  accordance  with  EU  provisions,  the 
managing authorities must define more relevant indicators for 2014-2020 for project selection and implementation. The indicator sets are 
determined for each programme and are recorded and analysed by the Monitoring System. 

Question 2.2.4. 

n/a 

Performance 
measurement 
system  to  monitor 
achievement 
the 
objectives  at  EU 
measure, 

126 

 
 
operations 
or 
project  level  and 
the 
to  monitor 
output  and  result 
indicators  at  EU 
measure, 
operations 
project level. 

or 

Question 3.1.1. 

Yes. 

With regard to agriculture: The ECA findings are forwarded to the competent authorities. For the EAGF and EAFRD, the certification 
bodies are required to follow up the audit findings of the Commission and Court of Auditors. 

In principle, no recommendations are made to specific Member States in the ECA's Annual or Special Reports. Descriptions of findings 
tend to remain very general and are often not aimed at a specific Member State or even a particular programme or project. This makes 
follow-up more difficult.  In any event, for the ERDF,  appropriate follow-up is given to the individual findings established  during the 
audits. 

for 

Framework  or  a 
system 
the 
follow-up of ECA's 
recommendations 
addressed 
to 
Member  States  in 
annual 
Court's 
special 
and 
reports. 
and 
Monitoring 
reporting 
on 
progress  achieved 
towards 
to 
implementation  of 
Court's 
recommendations 

127 

 
 
 
 
 
Belgium 

Question 1.1.1 

Main  root  causes 
in  the  major  EU 
areas 
spending 
(common 
agricultural 
policy, 
regional 
and  urban  policy, 
employment, 
social  affairs  and 
inclusion)  for  the 
persisting 
risks 
and errors pointed 
out by the ECA. 

NB: In order to develop the replies, the following non-exhaustive list of examples for 
root causes of legality and regularity errors in EU expenditure may be considered 

Not 
relevant 

Relevant 
in some 
respect 

Relevant 
in most 
respect 

Fully 
relevant 

  number and complexity of rules and gold-plating 

 

incorrect transposition of applicable EU legislation into national laws 

 

failure to observe the legal and procedural requirements stemming from 
EU and national legislation and rules 

  sufficient knowledge in applying procurement rules or State aid rules or 
other  applicable  EU  legislation  and  rules  (including  conditions  and 
eligibility  criteria  for  the  rural  development  measures,  simplified  cost 
options,  reasonableness  of  costs,  result-oriented  agri-environment 
payments) 

  complex eligibility rule 

  weaknesses  in  the  set  of  eligibility  rules  that  may  lead  to  potential  for 

circumventing them 

 

insufficient quality and up-date of the Land Parcel Identification System 
(LPIS) 

  mistakes in the aid applications 

  continued risks of misinterpretation of what is the eligible area for the 

basic payment scheme  

128 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

inefficient sanction mechanism for non-compliance or low sanction rate 
for non-compliance 

  need  of  raising  awareness,  targeted  training,  and,  development  and 
delivery  of  detailed  methodological  support  and  guidance  for  national 
and regional authorities and final beneficiaries 

  need of more or better resources and administrative capacity building 

  need  of  an  improved  quality  of  key  aspects  of  the  supervisory  and 
control  systems  (better  design  and/or  performance  of  administrative 
checks  and  on-the-spot  controls  and/or  increase  of  the  effectiveness  of 
the  work  carried  out  by  management  verifications,  audit  authorities, 
paying agencies and certification bodies) 

  better use of the information necessary to detect and correct available in 
the supporting documents, as well as at the level of the beneficiary or a 
national/regional body 

  sufficiently robust action plans developed to address both the causes of 
errors  and  the  weaknesses  in  the  management  and  control  systems 
and/or deficiencies in the EU spending 

 

insufficient  introduction  of  changes  by  new  legal  and/or  regulatory 
and/or procedural frameworks likely to have a significant impact on the 
causes of errors 

  need  of  more  initiatives  for  ensuring  a  genuine  simplification  for 

beneficiaries and programmes' implementation 

  knowledge and experience sharing, and dissemination of good practices 
improving  widespread 

at  national  and/or  at  EU 

level  on 

129 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
weaknesses/deficiencies/errors 

  expected  results  from  actions  that  will  not  always  be  evident  in  short-

term 

Question 1.1.2. 

 

le respect des règles nationales et de l'UE en matière d'éligibilité; utilisation des coûts simplifiés 

lessons 
Main 
while 
learned 
addressing 
the 
risks  and  errors 
for 
EU 
the 
spending. 

Measures impacting heavily on the environment or biodiversity often require a full set of conditions that it is not always easy to comply 
with  or  check.  The  removal  of  such  conditions  may  reduce  the  error  rate,  but  is  also  likely  to  contribute  less  positively  to  the 
environment  or  biodiversity.  Strong  guidance  for  beneficiaries  may  help  in  this  respect,  but  makes  life  more  difficult  for  the 
administration. 

le respect de la législation nationale et de l'UE relative aux marchés publics; et formations disponibles pour les fonctionnaires, 

 
séances d’informations pour les bénéficiaires 

It is worth alerting the beneficiary to the public-procurement requirements at an early stage of the process. However, comprehensively 
checking correct compliance with public-procurement legislation comes at a heavy administrative cost. 

 
There is a great deal of ignorance as to when a notification is or is not required. The most difficult cases are small-scale projects 
in the social or tourism sector where it cannot be clearly determined whether or not aid distorts the market and should be regarded as 
State aid. 

Question 1.1.3. 

practices 
Good 
and  examples  of 
success  stories  in 
the 
of 
areas 
compliance  with 
EU  and  national 
eligibility 
rules, 
compliance  with 
EU  and  national 
public 
procurement 
legislation, 
and 
compliance  with 
State aid rules. 

le  respect  des  règles  nationales  et  de  l'UE  en  matière  d'éligibilité;  identification  dans  une  quinzaine  de  pages  des  règles 

 
d’éligibilité applicables à tous les projets cofinancés 

Listing  of common errors for beneficiaries, automated checking  of digital file submissions, removal of  conditions that are difficult to 
comply with or check, etc.  

 
le respect de la législation nationale et de l'UE relative aux marchés publics; et large diffusion de guides, notamment, le guide 
d’orientation à destination des praticiens (comment éviter les erreurs les plus fréquentes commises dans le cadre des marchés publics de 
projets  cofinancés  par  les  Fonds  structurels  et  d’investissement  européens),  mise  à  jour  des  notes  d’orientations  pour  les  travaux 
complémentaires / supplémentaires 

In  the  case  of  specific  EAFRD  measures,  the  administration  already  asks  the  beneficiary  early  in  the  process  how  far  he  or  she  has 
progressed  with  public  procurement.  Training  is  organised  for  the  departments  managing  the  various  EAFRD  measures  on  public-
procurement legislation compliance checks. 

le respect des règles en matière d'aides d'État? Conscientisation accrue des collègues en charge des Fonds structurels sur cette 

 
matière, en particulier via l’instauration d’un point de contact unique 

130 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Question 1.2.1. 

Il convient de noter que le taux d’erreur pour les programmes opérationnels FEDER « mainstream » est largement inférieur à 1%. 

Contrôle sur pièces exhaustif et contrôle sur place mieux orienté, sur base de check-lists. 

Additional digitalisation of case handling, organisation with managing departments of working groups on control requirements, etc. 

Further  measures 
to 
the 
enhance 
effectiveness of the 
checks  carried  out 
declaring 
before 
or 
certifying 
expenditure  to  the 
Commission. 

Question 1.2.2. 

Il convient de noter que le taux d’erreur pour les programmes opérationnels FEDER « mainstream » est largement inférieur à 1%. 

Further  measures 
the 
enhance 
to 
of 
effectiveness 
actions 
to  detect 
and  correct  errors 
concerning 
expenditure, which 
previously 
was 
or 
declared 
the 
to 
certified 
Commission. 

Question 1.3.1. 

Risk  analysis  and 
estimated  level  of 
error  in  the  major 
EU spending areas 
(common 
agricultural 
policy, 
regional 
and  urban  policy, 
employment, 
social  affairs  and 

Vu le taux d’erreur, les mesures prises semblent correspondre à l’objectif fixé. 

L’analyse  des  risques  peut  se  baser  sur  les  différents  audits  de  système  de  2007-2013,  qui  se  sont  clôturés  dans  leur  grande  majorité 
favorablement, permettant ainsi une poursuite du système de gestion et de contrôle impliqué, dans un environnement sécurisé. 

When drawing up the programme, each measure was examined in detail in terms of each condition’s controllability and verifiability. 

131 

 
 
 
inclusion). 

Question 1.3.2. 

Yes. 

Awarding payments on the basis of surface area, for example, is often less constrained by extra eligibility conditions. The actual surface 
area  can  be  certified  accurately  by  indicating  plots  digitally.  If  aid  is  received  for  agri-environment  management  or  project 
implementation purposes, there are often more varying compliance rules, the complexity of which is often greater, thereby increasing the 
risk of errors. 

Non. 

Dans le cadre de la gestion partagée, la responsabilité confié aux autorités de gestion peut être un gage de suivi approprié si les audits de 
système mis en place sont adéquats et suivis. 

Il faut être conscient que le concours du FEDER dont la Wallonie bénéficie reste marginal par rapport aux valeurs cibles de la stratégie 
Europe 2020. Toutefois, les mesures prises et les projets retenus concourent évidemment à celles-ci. 

En Wallonie, des échanges d’informations sont réguliers entre les programmes cofinancés parles Fonds structurels et d’investissement 
européens et les autres programmes, comme le « plan Marshall » de relance pour la Wallonie.  Par ailleurs, une participation croisée a 
été mise en place dans le processus de sélection. 

Relationship 
between  the  basis 
for  payment  and 
levels  of  error  in 
the  major  EU 
spending 
areas 
(common 
agricultural 
policy, 
regional 
and  urban  policy, 
employment, 
social  affairs  and 
inclusion). 

Question 2.1.1. 

Links  between  EU 
the 
in 
priorities 
context 
the 
of 
Europe 2020 
strategy,  including 
Horizon 2020,  and 
national priorities. 

Question 2.1.2. 

to 
synergies 

Measures 
pursue 
and 
complementarities 
ESI 
between 
and 
Funds 
national 
programmes . 

132 

 
 
 
Des indicateurs financiers et de réalisation sont repris dans le programme opérationnel FEDER « Wallonie-2020.EU » pour le cadre de 
performance. Des cibles ont été définies par axes prioritaires et sont liées aux priorités d’investissements établies par l’UE. L’atteinte de 
ces  cibles  sera  mesurée  à  partir  des  données  fournies  par  les  projets  soutenus.  Par  exemple,  l’indicateur  «  Entreprises  soutenues  » 
agrégera le nombre d’entreprises soutenues par le programme. Les porteurs de projets devront réaliser ce reporting au moins une fois par 
an auprès de l’autorité de gestion via leur rapport annuel. 

Question 2.2.1. 

Performance 
measurement 
system  to  link  EU 
measures, 
operations 
projects 
priorities/Europe 
2020 
and targets. 

or 
to  EU 

objectives 

Question 2.2.2. 

Framework for the 
of 
management 
ESI 
in 
Funds 
order  to  achieve  a 
result-oriented 
system  and  impact 
of EU projects. 

Un système de suivi au niveau du programme opérationnel « Wallonie-2020.EU » a été mis en place, il s’agit d’un dispositif visant la 
collecte, l’analyse et la communication des informations en vue de disposer des données quantitatives et qualitatives sur la progression 
financière, les réalisations et les résultats directs et indirects des projets mis en œuvre au travers des différentes mesures du programme. 
Tous les acteurs sont impliqués dans le cadre de ce système de suivi qui contribue à l’approche orientée résultats.  

Le système veille à détecter des problèmes éventuels de mise en œuvre et les régler au plus vite, obtenir des exemples de bonne pratique 
qui  pourraient  être  généralisés,  communiquer  facilement  sur  les  réalisations  et  les  résultats  engrangés  et  également  à  alimenter  les 
différentes évaluations pour appuyer l’analyse des données et leur interprétation et ainsi aider à la prise de décision. 

Les évaluations planifiées (plan d’évaluation du PO Wallon), le cadre de performance composé des indicateurs de réalisation les plus 
représentatifs de chaque axe prioritaire et des indicateurs financiers, ainsi que la responsabilisation accrue des bénéficiaires à l’atteinte 
des résultats font partie intégrante du système de suivi. 

Question 2.2.3. 

Oui. 

State 
Member 
actions  to  define 
or  improve  result 
indicators  at  EU 
project level. 

Sur  la  base  des  enseignements  de  la  période  précédente,  un  cadre  d’indicateurs  (indicateurs  de  réalisation  et  de  résultat,  communs  et 
spécifiques)  a été établi  au  niveau  de  chaque axe du  PO en lien avec les priorités d’investissement. Dans le cadre de la  sélection des 
projets, selon la mesure dans laquelle le projet s’inscrit, les bénéficiaires ont été tenus de quantifier / identifier au moins un indicateur de 
résultat  et  de  réalisation.  Cette  exigence  faisait  partie  des  critères  de  sélection  du  Gouvernement  wallon  et  visait  également  à  ce  que 
chaque  projet  contribue  aux  résultats  attendus  de  la  mesure.  À  une  échelle  plus  micro,  en  plus  des  indicateurs  repris  dans  leur  fiche-
projet,  les  bénéficiaires  sont  invités  à  valoriser  les  résultats  et  les  impacts  supplémentaires  de  leur(s)  projet(s).  L’autorité  de  gestion 
entend ainsi favoriser une dynamique de conscientisation des bénéficiaires sur l’orientation résultats de la programmation 2014-2020 et 
les responsabiliser davantage dans l’atteinte des objectifs fixés par la Wallonie. 

Question 2.2.4. 

Performance 

Le système de suivi (cf. ci-avant) du programme opérationnel « Wallonie-2020.EU » a pour objectif de suivre la réalisation des objectifs 
et l’atteinte des cibles des indicateurs définis.  

133 

 
 
En outre des indicateurs « d’étapes » ont été définis afin de suivre la progression des réalisations en vue d’atteindre le résultat (« Actions 
de revitalisation urbaine finalisées » et son indicateur d’étape « Actions de revitalisation urbaine pour lesquelles les procédures précédant 
les travaux ont été réalisées »).  

Enfin, des évaluations visant à évaluer l’atteinte des objectifs par axes (avec des focus emploi notamment) ont été planifiées dans le plan 
d’évaluation de la Wallonie validé par le Comité de suivi le 11 décembre 2015. 

Oui. 
Présentation des recommandations aux acteurs concernés, intégration des conclusions applicables dans les procédures, etc. 

measurement 
system  to  monitor 
achievement 
the 
objectives  at  EU 
measure, 
operations 
or 
project  level  and 
to  monitor 
the 
output  and  result 
indicators  at  EU 
measure, 
operations 
project level. 

or 

Question 3.1.1. 

for 

Framework  or  a 
system 
the 
follow-up of ECA's 
recommendations 
addressed 
to 
Member  States  in 
annual 
Court's 
and 
special 
reports. 
and 
Monitoring 
on 
reporting 
progress  achieved 
towards 
to 
implementation  of 
Court's 
recommendations 

134 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Not relevant 

Relevant in some respect 

Relevant in most respect  

Fully 
relevant 

Bulgaria 

Question 1.1.1 

in 

Main 
root 
causes 
the 
EU 
major 
spending  areas 
(common 
agricultural 
policy,  regional 
and 
urban 
policy, 
employment, 
affairs 
social 
inclusion) 
and 
for 
the 
persisting  risks 
and 
errors 
pointed  out  by 
the ECA. 

may 

NB: In order to develop the 
replies,  the  following  non-
exhaustive  list  of  examples 
for  root  causes  of  legality 
and regularity errors in EU 
be 
expenditure 
considered 
(issues 
concerning  the  achievement 
of  policy  objectives  and 
value  added  are  covered 
under  question  2  here 
below).  Therefore,  you  are 
kindly  invited  to  mark  the 
extent  of  relevance  of  the 
examples  per  major  EU 
(common 
spending  area 
agricultural policy, regional 
and 
policy, 
employment,  social  affairs 
and 
is 
inclusion)  as 
perceived  for  your  country 
and in addition to develop a 
narrative  in  your  reply  to 
question 1.1.1 here under: 

urban 

it 

  number  and  complexity 
rules  and  gold-

of 

135 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
plating 

Executive Agency ‘Audit of 
EU Funds’ 

-  Public 
Agency 

Procurement 

-  AGRICULTURAL 

POLICY  Ministry  of 
Agriculture and Food 
-  ECONOMIC POLICY 
-  Ministry of the Economy 
-  SCIENCE 
AND 

EDUCATION POLICY 
-  Ministry  of  Education 

and Science 

-  TRANSPORT POLICY 
-  Ministry  of  Transport 
(Directorate 
for 
coordination  of  projects 
and programmes) 

-  ECONOMIC 
POLICY 
-  Ministry 
Economy 

of 

the 

REGIONAL POLICY 

Ministry of Regional 
Development and Public 
Works (Directorate-
General for European 
funds, international 
projects and programmes) 

-  SCIENCE 

AND 

EDUCATION POLICY 
-  Ministry  of  Education 
Science 
and 
(Directorate-General  for 
Structural  Funds  and 
international educational 
programmes) 

-   

Bulgarian National Audit 

Office: 

  incorrect 

transposition 
EU 
applicable 
of 
legislation  into  national 
laws 

18 

Article 

In connection with findings 
of  the  ECA  in  Report  No 
PF-7367, 
national 
the 
legislation  was  amended, 
and 
of 
Ordinance No 5 of 2009 on 
the  terms  and  procedure 
for 
of 
submission 
applications  under  direct 
schemes  and 
payments 
measures  was  repealed  on 
26 February 2016.  

136 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
- AGRICULTURAL 
POLICY  Ministry 
Agriculture and Food 
- Executive  Agency  ‘Audit 
of EU Funds’ 

of 

REGIONAL POLICY 

Ministry 

of 

Regional 
Development  and  Public 
Works 
(Directorate-
for  European 
General 
international 
funds, 
projects 
and 
programmes) 

  failure  to  observe  the 
legal  and  procedural 
requirements  stemming 
from  EU  and  national 
legislation and rules 

The  Managing  Authority 
(MA  Directorate  General 
‘European 
Funds, 
International 
Programmes 
and 
Projects’  (GD  EFMPP), 
Ministry  of  Economy) 
fully  observes  the  legal 
procedural 
and 
requirements 
stemming 
from  EU  and  national 
legislation  and  rules,  and 
where 
cases 
in 
applicants/beneficiaries 
do  not  observe  them,  the 
established 
has 
MA 
for 
procedures 
and 
monitoring 

-  AGRICULTURAL 

- Bulgarian 

National 

POLICY 

Audit Office: 

-  Ministry  of  Agriculture 

and Food 

-  ECONOMIC  POLICY 
Ministry of the Economy 
(Directorate-General  for 
European 
for 
competitiveness) 

funds 

- SCIENCE 

AND 
EDUCATION  POLICY 
Ministry  of  Education 
and Science 

- Executive Agency ‘Audit 

of EU Funds’ 

- REGIONAL POLICY 
- Ministry  of  Regional 
Development  and  Public 
Works 
(Directorate-
for  European 
General 
international 
funds, 
projects 
and 
programmes) 

137 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
corrective measures 

  sufficient  knowledge  in 
applying 
procurement 
rules  or  State  aid  rules 
or  other  applicable  EU 
legislation  and 
rules 
(including 
conditions 
and  eligibility  criteria 
for 
rural 
the 
development  measures, 
simplified  cost  options, 
reasonableness of costs, 
result-oriented 
agri-
environment payments) 

With  regard  to  State  aid 
rules 
(including 
conditions  and  eligibility 
criteria),  the  MA  (GD 
the  MI) 
at 
EFMPP 
identifies  the  need  for 
additional training. 

  complex eligibility rules 

The  MA  (GD  EFMPP  at 

          Bulgarian  National 

Audit Office: 

-  Public Procurement 

Agency 

-  ECONOMIC POLICY 
-  Ministry of the Economy 
(Directorate-General  for 
for 
European 
competitiveness) 

funds 

-   
-  SCIENCE 

AND 

EDUCATION POLICY 
-  Ministry  of  Education 
and 
Science 
(Directorate-General  for 
Structural  Funds  and 
international educational 
programmes) 

-  Executive Agency ‘Audit 

of EU Funds’ 

-  AGRICULTURAL 

138 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
to 

the MI) has taken various 
measures 
inform 
applicants 
potential 
regarding  the  eligibility 
rules  for  each  specific 
for  granting 
procedure 
financial 
assistance. 
These include:  

-  Publishing  for  public 
discussion  of  Draft 
for 
Guidelines 
the 
Applicants  and 
documents 
thereto, 
Evaluation 
and 
and 
Criteria 
under 
Methodology 
forthcoming 
the 
procedures 
for 
financial 
granting 
assistance; 

-  After  the  Head  of  the 
the 

approves 
MA 
documentation, 
the 
comprising 
for 
Guidelines 
the 
Applicants  and 
Evaluation 
Criteria 
and  Methodology,  it  is 
the 
published 
website 
the 
Managing  Authority 

in 
of 

POLICY 

- 

-  Ministry  of  Agriculture 

and Food 

-  ECONOMIC POLICY 
-  Ministry of the Economy 
-  SCIENCE 
AND 

EDUCATION POLICY 
-  Ministry  of  Education 
Science 
and 
(Directorate-General  for 
Structural  Funds  and 
international educational 
programmes) 

-   
-  Bulgarian 

Audit Office: 

National 

-   TRANSPORT POLICY 
-  Ministry  of  Transport 
(Directorate 
for 
coordination  of  projects 
and programmes) 

-  REGIONAL 

POLICY 
Ministry  of  Regional 
Development  and  Public 
Works 
(Directorate-
for  European 
General 
international 
funds, 
projects 
and 
programmes) 

-  Executive Agency ‘Audit 

of EU Funds’ 

139 

 
 
 
in 

(www.opcompetitivene
ss.bg  /  www.opic.bg), 
the  Single 
and 
Information 
Web 
containing 
Portal 
information 
general 
the 
regarding 
management 
of 
European  Structural 
and  Investment  Funds 
in 
the  Republic  of 
Bulgaria 
(www.eufunds.bg), 
which, pursuant to the 
national 
are 
subject  to  change  in  a 
very limited number of 
cases; 

law, 

-  Organising 
information 
campaigns 
training 
potential 
and beneficiaries; 

events 

and 
for 
applicants 

further 
Providing 
each 
on 
clarification 
individual 
procedure 
through  the  ‘Questions 
section, 
and  Answers’ 
published  on  the  official 
website of the MA, etc. 

140 

 
 
 
 
  weaknesses in the set of 
eligibility rules that may 
lead 
for 
to  potential 
circumventing them 

and 

has 
to 

The  MA  (GD  EFMPP  at 
taken 
the  MI) 
measures 
ensure 
connection 
maximum 
eligibility 
between 
the 
for 
requirements 
applicants 
the 
evaluation  criteria  and 
methodology.  This 
is 
the 
guaranteed 
established  control  in  the 
course of the coordination 
procedure 
the 
approval of the guidelines 
for  applicants  for  each 
procedure. 

for 

by 

-  AGRICULTURAL 

POLICY 
-  Ministry 

Agriculture 
Food 

-  REGIONAL 
POLICY 
-  Ministry 
Regional 
Development 
Public 
(Directorate-
General 
European 
international 
projects 
programmes) 

of 
and 

of 

and 
Works 

for 
funds, 

and 

-  ECONOMIC 
POLICY 
-  Ministry 
Economy 
-  SCIENCE 

of 

EDUCATION 
POLICY 
-  Ministry 

the 

AND 

of 
and 

Education 
Science 
(Directorate-
General 
Structural 
and 
educational 
programmes) 

for 
Funds 
international 

- 
-  Bulgarian  National 

Audit Office: 

-  Executive  Agency 
EU 

of 

‘Audit 
Funds’ 

- 

  insufficient  quality  and 
the  Land 
Identification 

up-date  of 
Parcel 
System (LPIS) 

- AGRICULTURAL 

POLICY 

- Ministry  of  Agriculture 

141 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
and Food 
- SCIENCE 

AND 

EDUCATION POLICY 
- Ministry  of  Education 
and 
Science 
(Directorate-General  for 
Structural  Funds  and 
international educational 
programmes) 

-  
- REGIONAL POLICY 
- Ministry  of  Regional 
Development  and  Public 
(Directorate-
Works 
for  European 
General 
international 
funds, 
projects 
and 
programmes) 

The  MA  (GD  EFMPP  at 
the  MI)  has  introduced  a 
electronic 
completely 
and 
application 
through 
evaluation 
the 
Unified 
Management 
Information  System  for 
Management 
and 
Monitoring  of  the  EU 
Structural Instruments in 
(UMIS  2020). 
Bulgaria 
The  benefits  achieved 
include  faster 
generally 
and 
easier 
communication  between 
the  MA  and  applicants; 
published 
standard 
application  forms  for  all 
operational  programmes, 
facilitate 
which 
applicants 
the 
development  of  project 
proposals.  UMIS  2020  is 
the  Bulstat 
linked 
register 
the 
and 
Commercial  Register  and 
extracts  from  there  the 
thus 
data 
required, 
ensuring  speed 
the 
working  process  of  the 
MA.  

to 

in 

in 

Furthermore,  UMIS  2020 
contains controls that are 
in 
programmed 
the 
accordance  with 
for 
requirements 

142 

 
 
 
 
is 

for 

impossible 

application 
each 
individual  procedure  and 
thus  assist  applicants  in 
the preparation of project 
proposals.  As  a  result  of 
the electronic application, 
to 
it 
generate  and  submit  an 
Application  Form 
in 
which  sections  designated 
as  mandatory  by  the  MA 
are  not  completed.  This 
reduces  the  number  of 
project proposals rejected 
on grounds relating to not 
completed  data 
in  the 
application form. 

The  MA  (GD  EFMPP  at 
the  MI)  has 
taken  a 
number  of  measures  to 
in 
eliminate 
applications 
for 
assistance  as  early  as  at 
the evaluation stage: 

errors 

- 

in  the  event  that  the 
applicant 
has 
calculated wrongly the 
intensity  of  the  grant 
arithmetic 
and/or 
errors 
and/or 
discrepancies  between 
and 
amounts 
percentages are found, 
a correction of budgets 

143 

 
 
 
- 

is 
applied; 

automatically 

in  the  event  that  the 
assistance  applied  for 
exceeds  the  threshold 
for  de  minimis/state 
assistance 
aid, 
the 
requested 
is 
automatically  reduced 
evaluation 
by 
the 
committee 
maximum 
amount 
without  this  resulting 
the 
in  rejection  of 
project proposal under 
the procedure; 

the 

to 

-  errors  are  corrected 
automatically  and  are 
brought  in  line  with 
the  information  stated 
publicly 
in 
the 
official 
accessible 
registers; 

-  where  the  applicant  is 
registered  under  the 
Commercial  Register 
Act  and  the  required 
information  is  entered 
the  Commercial 
in 
Register  as  of  the  date 
of 
the 
application, 
circumstances 
the 
declared 
applicant  are  verified 
using official channels; 

by 

144 

 
 
the 

-  a  check  is  performed 
in terms of compliance 
State/de 
with 
minimis  aid  regimes 
with  regard 
to  all 
applicants: once at the 
evaluation  stage,  and 
once at the contracting 
stage.  A  practice  was 
introduced  to  require 
the 
additionally 
evaluation stage one or 
more 
the 
of 
accompanying 
documents  specified in 
for 
the  Guidelines 
Applicants, 
or 
documents  submitted 
by  the  applicants,  but 
not 
in  the  required 
form. 

at 

-  When 

requests 

for 
clarification 
and/or 
additional  documents 
are  sent,  the  identified 
are 
deficiencies 
described  as  clearly 
as 
and 
accurately 
This 
possible. 
the 
minimises 
likelihood  of  rejection 
of proposals as a result 
of 
of 
submission 
incomplete/incorrect 
additional 
documents/clarificatio

145 

 
 
facilitates 
ns 
and 
applicants 
the 
in 
process  of  preparation 
of 
such 
documents/clarificatio
ns. 

  mistakes 

in 
applications 

the  aid 

of 

the 

-  ECONOMIC 
POLICY 
-  Ministry 
Economy 
(Directorate-
General 
for 
European  funds  for 
competitiveness) 

-  AGRICULTURAL 

POLICY 
-  Ministry 

Agriculture 
Food 

of 
and 

- 
-  SCIENCE 

EDUCATION 
POLICY 
-  Ministry 

AND 

of 
and 

Education 
Science 
(Directorate-
General 
Structural 
and 
educational 
programmes) 

for 
Funds 
international 

- 
-  Bulgarian  National 

Audit Office: 

146 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  continued 

risks 

of 
misinterpretation 
of 
what is the eligible area 
for  the  basic  payment 
scheme  

-  AGRICULTURAL 
POLICY  Ministry 
of  Agriculture  and 
Food 
-  SCIENCE 

AND 

EDUCATION 
POLICY  Ministry 
of  Education  and 
Science 
-  REGIONAL 

POLICY  Ministry 
Regional 
of 
and 
Development 
Public 
Works 
(Directorate-
General 
European 
international 
projects 
programmes) 

for 
funds, 

and 

  inefficient 
sanction 
mechanism 
for  non-
low 
compliance 
or 
sanction  rate  for  non-
compliance  

-  AGRICULTURAL 
POLICY  Ministry 
of  Agriculture  and 
Food 

-  REGIONAL 

POLICY  Ministry 

147 

Bulgarian National Audit 
Office: 

of 

the 

-  Ministry 
Economy 
(Directorate-
General 
for 
European  funds  for 
competitiveness) 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Regional 
and 
Works 

for 
funds, 

of 
Development 
Public 
(Directorate-
General 
European 
international 
projects 
programmes) 

and 

148 

- 
-  SCIENCE 

AND 

EDUCATION 
POLICY  Ministry 
of  Education  and 
Science 
(Directorate-
General 
Structural 
and 
educational 
programmes) 

for 
Funds 
international 

- 
-  Executive  Agency 
EU 

of 

‘Audit 
Funds’ 

-  AGRICULTURAL 
POLICY  Ministry 
of  Agriculture  and 
Food 
-  Ministry 

of 

Transport 
(Directorate 
coordination 
projects 
programmes) 

for 
of 
and 

-  Executive  Agency 
EU 

of 

‘Audit 
Funds’ 

-  Public Procurement 

Agency 
-  ECONOMIC 

POLICY  Ministry 
of the Economy  

-  SCIENCE 

AND 

Bulgaria
n 
National 
Audit 
Office: 

EDUCATION 
POLICY 
-  Ministry 

Education 
Science 
-  REGIONAL 
POLICY  
-  Ministry 

of 
and 

of 

  need 

raising 
of 
targeted 
awareness, 
and, 
training, 
and 
development 
delivery 
detailed 
of 
methodological  support 
for 
guidance 
and 
national  and  regional 
authorities  and 
final 
beneficiaries 

MI:  Need  for  additional 
training  in  the  field  of 
State aid. 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  need  of  more  or  better 
resources 
and 
administrative  capacity 
building 

- 

Regional 
Development 
Public 
(Directorate-
General 
European 
international 
projects 
programmes) 

and 
Works 

for 
funds, 

and 

-  AGRICULTURAL 

-  Public Procurement 

POLICY 
-  Ministry 

Agriculture 
Food 

of 
and 

-  TRANSPORT 

POLICY  Ministry 
Transport 
of 
for 
(Directorate 
of 
coordination 
projects 
and 
programmes) 
-  REGIONAL 

POLICY  Ministry 
Regional 
of 
and 
Development 
Public 
Works 
(Directorate-

149 

Agency 
of 

the 

-  Ministry 
Economy 
(Directorate-
for 
General 
European  funds  for 
competitiveness) 

-  SCIENCE 

AND 

EDUCATION 
POLICY 
-  Ministry 

of 
and 

Education 
Science 
(Directorate-
General 
Structural 
and 

for 
Funds 
international 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
General 
European 
international 
projects 
programmes) 

for 
funds, 

and 

educational 
programmes) 

- 
-  Executive  Agency 
EU 

of 

‘Audit 
Funds’ 

  need  of  an 

improved 
quality of key aspects of 
the 
supervisory  and 
control  systems  (better 
and/or 
design 
of 
performance 
administrative 
checks 
and on-the-spot controls 
and/or  increase  of  the 
effectiveness of the work 
carried 
by 
management 
verifications, 
authorities, 
agencies 
certification bodies) 

audit 
paying 
and 

out 

-  AGRICULTURAL 
POLICY  Ministry 
of  Agriculture  and 
Food 

150 

-  ECONOMIC 

-  Public Procurement 

Agency 

-  Bulgarian National 

Audit Office: 

-  Executive  Agency 
EU 

of 

‘Audit 
Funds’  

POLICY  Ministry 
the  Economy 
of 
(Directorate-
General 
for 
European  funds  for 
competitiveness) 

- 
-  SCIENCE 

AND 

EDUCATION 
POLICY  Ministry 
of  Education  and 
Science 
(Directorate-
General 
Structural 
and 
educational 
programmes) 
-  REGIONAL 

for 
Funds 
international 

POLICY  Ministry 
Regional 
of 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Development 
Public 
(Directorate-
General 
European 
international 
projects 
programmes) 

and 
Works 

for 
funds, 

and 

  better 

of 

use 

the 
information  necessary 
to  detect  and  correct 
available 
the 
supporting  documents, 
as well as at the level of 
the  beneficiary  or  a 
national/regional body 

in 

-  AGRICULTURAL 

-  SCIENCE 

AND 

-  ECONOMIC 

POLICY  
-  Ministry 

Agriculture 
Food 

of 
and 

EDUCATION 
POLICY  Ministry 
of  Education  and 
Science 
(Directorate-
General 
Structural 
and 
educational 
programmes)  
-  Bulgarian  National 

for 
Funds 
international 

Audit Office: 

-  Executive  Agency 
EU 

of 

‘Audit 
Funds’ 

POLICY  Ministry 
of 
the  Economy 
(Directorate-
for 
General 
European  funds  for 
competitiveness) 

-  REGIONAL 

POLICY  Ministry 
Regional 
of 
and 
Development 
Works 
Public 
(Directorate-
General 
European 
international 
projects 
programmes) 

for 
funds, 

and 

  sufficiently 

robust 

151 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
action  plans  developed 
to  address  both 
the 
causes of errors and the 
the 
weaknesses 
management 
and 
control  systems  and/or 
deficiencies  in  the  EU 
spending  

in 

MI: 

Information 
the 
regarding 
weaknesses 
and 
problems  found  in  the 
process  of  evaluation 
of  project  proposals  is 
exchanged between the 
departments 
of 
General  Directorate 
‘European  Funds  for 
Competitiveness’  (GD 
EFC)  and  measures 
are  taken  to  address 
in 
omissions 
subsequent 
procedures. 

  insufficient  introduction 
of changes by new legal 
regulatory 
and/or 
procedural 
and/or 
to 
likely 
frameworks 
have 
significant 
impact  on  the  causes  of 
errors 

a 

MI:  There  are  many 
changes 
in  statutory 
instruments  applicable 

-  AGRICULTURAL 
POLICY  Ministry 
of  Agriculture  and 
Food 

-  Executive  Agency 
EU 

of 

‘Audit 
Funds’ 

- 

152 

-  ECONOMIC 

POLICY  Ministry 
of the Economy 

-  SCIENCE 

AND 

EDUCATION 
POLICY  Ministry 
of  Education  and 
Science 
(Directorate-
General 
Structural 
and 
educational 
programmes) 

for 
Funds 
international 

- 
-  Executive  Agency 
EU 

of 

‘Audit 
Funds’ 

-  SCIENCE 

AND 

-  ECONOMIC 

EDUCATION 
POLICY 
-  Ministry 

Education 
Science 
(Directorate-
General 

of 
and 

for 

- 

POLICY  Ministry 
the  Economy 
of 
(Directorate-
General 
for 
European  funds  for 
competitiveness) 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
existing 
to 
already 
proceedings. 
This 
creates uncertainty for 
and 
applicants 
beneficiaries 
and 
makes  the  process  of 
examining applications 
for aid difficult.   

Funds 
international 

Structural 
and 
educational 
programmes) 

- 
-  Bulgarian  National 

Audit Office: 
-  REGIONAL 

POLICY  Ministry 
Regional 
of 
Development 
and 
Public 
Works 
(Directorate-
General 
European 
international 
projects 
programmes) 

for 
funds, 

and 

Bulgaria
n 
National 
Audit 
Office: 

-  ECONOMIC 

-  AGRICULTURE 

POLICY  Ministry 
the  Economy 
of 
(Directorate-
General 
for 
European  funds  for 
competitiveness) 

-  REGIONAL 

POLICY  Ministry 
Regional 
of 
Development 
and 
Works 
Public 

Ministry 
Agriculture 
Food 
-  SCIENCE 

of 
and 

AND 

EDUCATION 
POLICY  Ministry 
of  Education  and 
Science 

- 

  need  of  more  initiatives 
for  ensuring  a  genuine 
for 
simplification 
beneficiaries 
and 
programmes' 
implementation 

have 

several 
MI:  To  date 
been 
initiatives 
undertaken  for  ensuring 
a  genuine  simplification 
of 
and 
application 
evaluation  procedures  to 
the 
of 
benefit 
beneficiaries, 
including: 
electronic application and 

-  Executive  Agency 
EU 

of 

‘Audit 
Funds’ 

153 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
communication  at 
the 
evaluation  stage  through 
UMIS  2020,  striving  to 
reduce  the  number  of 
required 
supporting 
documents  accompanying 
for 
applications 
assistance,  increasing  the 
number  of  official  checks 
performed 
in  publicly 
available  official  registers 
and  information  systems, 
etc. 
Information 
regarding  the  weaknesses 
and  problems  found  in 
the  process  of  evaluation 
of  project  proposals 
is 
exchanged  between  the 
departments  of  GD  EFC 
and  measures  are  taken 
to  address  omissions  in 
subsequent procedures. 

  knowledge 

and 
experience  sharing,  and 
dissemination  of  good 
practices  at  national 
and/or  at  EU  level  on 
improving  widespread 
weaknesses/deficiencies
/errors 

(Directorate-
General 
European 
international 
projects 
programmes) 

for 
funds, 

and 

-  SCIENCE 

AND 

-  Public Procurement 

EDUCATION 
POLICY  Ministry 
of  Education  and 
Science 
(Directorate-
General 
Structural 
and 

for 
Funds 
international 

Agency 

-  AGRICULTURAL 
POLICY  Ministry 
of  Agriculture  and 
Food 

-  ECONOMIC 

POLICY  Ministry 
the  Economy 
of 

154 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
educational 
programmes) 

- 
-  Bulgarian  National 

Audit Office: 

(Directorate-
General 
for 
European  funds  for 
competitiveness) 

-  Executive  Agency 
EU 

of 

‘Audit 
Funds’ 

-  ECONOMIC 

-  SCIENCE 

AND 

EDUCATION 
POLICY  Ministry 
of  Education  and 
Science 
(Directorate-
General 
Structural 
and 
educational 
programmes) 

for 
Funds 
international 

- 

POLICY  Ministry 
of the Economy 
-  Bulgarian  National 

Audit Office: 
-  REGIONAL 

POLICY  Ministry 
Regional 
of 
Development 
and 
Works 
Public 
(Directorate-
General 
European 
international 
projects 
programmes) 

for 
funds, 

and 

  expected  results 

from 
that  will  not 
in 

actions 
always  be  evident 
short-term 

-  AGRICULTURAL 
POLICY  Ministry 
of  Agriculture  and 
Food 

-  Executive  Agency 
EU 

of 

‘Audit 
Funds’ 

155 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Question 1.1.2. 

lessons 
Main 
learned  while 
addressing 
the 
risks  and  errors 
EU 
the 
for 
spending. 

Ministry of the Economy: Compliance of the national public procurement legislation with the EU rules, and the correct transposition of EU 
directives are essential for the proper spending of EU funds and avoiding infringements justifying the imposing of financial corrections. 

Ministry of the Economy - Compliance with State aid rules has an important role and is a condition for the granting of financial assistance. 
The complexity of the requirements for the different types of State aid creates difficulties for applicants and beneficiaries – SMEs in terms 
of the proper understanding and implementation of such requirements.  

The MA observes the legal and procedural requirements stemming from EU and national legislation and the State aid rules, and in cases 
where applicants/beneficiaries do not observe them, the MA applies the required procedures for monitoring and corrective action. A lesson 
learned  in  relation  to  overcoming  deficiencies  is  the  need  to  ensure  maximum  connection  between  the  eligibility  requirements  for 
applicants,  envisaged  in the Guidelines for Applicants, and the evaluation criteria and  methodology for the specific  procedure. The MA 
strives to achieve this with the help of controls introduced in the coordination procedure for the approval of the guidelines for applicants for 
each procedure. 

PPA: The main lessons are the existence of adequate control by the responsible authorities and cooperation between authorities.  

Question 1.1.3. 

Good  practices 
and examples of 
success  stories 
in  the  areas  of 
compliance  with 
EU and national 
eligibility  rules, 
compliance  with 
EU and national 
public 
procurement 
legislation,  and 
compliance  with 
State aid rules. 

Ministry  of  the  Economy  -  After  launching  procedures  for  granting  financial  assistance,  the  Managing  Authority  conducts  information 
campaigns for the target groups of the corresponding procedure, and after contracts with beneficiaries are signed, training on the execution 
of contracts is conducted. 

M of the Economy: Guidelines for execution of grant contracts, presenting the most common errors in the field of public procurement, are 
developed and published in the website of the Managing Authority. 

Participation  in  training  events  on  the  implementation  of  national  and  EU  legislation  in  the  field;  regular  preparation  of  information  by 
audit authorities and the Managing Authority regarding the most common errors in implementing the rules and regulations. 

At  present  the  Managing  Authority  has  no  methodology  or  practice  for  the  use  of  simplified  costs,  as  they  are  not  applicable  to  the 
operational programme. 

As specified above, the MA has introduced a number of good practices that ensure compliance with the State/de minimis aid rules both in 
the course of the evaluation of applications for assistance and at the contracting stage. Examples include:  

  carrying out of official checks in the official registers of received State/de minimis aid — UMIS, UMIS 2020, Register of de minimis 

aid at the Ministry of Finance; 

  verification of the information regarding received State/de minimis aid declared in the Declaration of State/de minimis aid; 

  in the event that the applicant has calculated wrongly the intensity of the grant and/or arithmetic errors and/or discrepancies between 
amounts  and  percentages  that  would  result  in  violation  of  the  State/de  minimis  aid  rules  are  found,  a  correction  of  budgets  is 
automatically applied; 

  in the event that the assistance applied for exceeds the threshold for de minimis aid, the assistance requested is automatically reduced 

156 

 
 
by the evaluation committee to the maximum amount without this resulting in rejection of the project proposal under the procedure. 

As  a  positive  example  in  the  practice  of  the  MA  we  can  indicate  that  a  check  for  compliance  with  the  State/de  minimis  aid  regimes  is 
carried  out  with  regard  to  all  applicants  at  the  evaluation  stage,  and  with  regard  to  applicants  proposed  for  financing  a  further  in-depth 
check is performed at the contracting stage. Thus we avoid unnecessary spending of resources associated with performing very  thorough 
checks on applicants who are not proposed for financing.  

SFA:  With  regard  to  operations  for  rural  development  (in  connection  with  assessing  whether  costs  are  justified  using  the  approach  of 
assessing and comparing different (at least three) offers), a practice of sending requests for confirmation to tenderers is introduced in order 
to guarantee the authenticity of submitted offers. 

MTIT&C:  During  the  2007—2013  a  mechanism  for  simplified  reporting  of  costs  through  vouchers  for  unemployed  and  employed 
individuals (Council of Ministers Decree No 251 of 2009), and a single cost standard for the provision of social services were introduced 
under  OP  HRD.  The  opportunity  to  provide  training  for  employed  and  unemployed  persons  continues  in  OP  HRD  2014—2020.  The 
opportunities to apply other forms of  simplified  costs are  currently explored.   A study of historical data  to establish  the average  market 
prices is envisaged. A new approach aimed at reducing the administrative burden is the fully electronic application for and reporting of the 
implementation of projects, which is a continuation of the electronic information collection and reporting that started during the previous 
programming  period.  The  currently  developed  methodology  for  implementation  and  verification  based  on  a  sample  of  reported  costs  is 
aimed at reducing the administrative burden during the verification stage. 

Question 1.2.1. 

Further 
to 
measures 
enhance 
the 
effectiveness  of 
checks 
the 
carried 
out 
before declaring 
certifying 
or 
to 
expenditure 
the Commission. 

Ministry of the Economy: When beneficiaries declare costs for verification, a verifying team from the Managing Authority conducts on-
the-spot  verifications.  The  purpose  of  the  verifications  is  to  establish  whether  all  assets  have  been  delivered  and  whether  the  entire 
documentation  relating  to  the  project  implementation  is  available  at  the  beneficiary.  In  the  course  of  management  verifications,  the 
principle of double checking, at the stages of verification of activities and verification of expenditure, is strictly observed. 

Audit of EU Funds EA: The Audit Authority regularly shares its approach to the checks performed and, in particular, on checks performed 
in relation to public procurement. This approach has been approved by the European Commission and has been recommended by it for all 
authorities  within  the  national  system.  In  this  connection  the  Audit  Authority  publishes  and  disseminates  the  check-lists  for  public 
procurement developed by it. During the period March—April 2015, with a letter from the Deputy Prime Minister for European Funds and 
Economic  Policies  to  the  competent  national  authorities,  analytical  information  regarding  detected  irregularities  in  the  field  of  public 
procurement and standard forms of check-lists developed by the Audit Authority were sent. The letter requires from competent national 
authorities to use the respective check-lists. 

The Audit Authority also publishes analytical information regarding irregularities relating to public procurement, established by it in the 
course  of  audits  of  operations.  This  analysis  contains  information  regarding  the  approach  to  the  conducting  of  examinations,  specific 
information regarding the types of irregularities found (including statistics and practical examples), and conclusions and recommendations. 

NF: On 25 July 2016, Ordinance No H-3 of the Minister for Finance of 8 July 2016 laying down the rules of payment, verification and 
certification of expenditure, recovery and write-off of irregular expenditure and accounting, as well as the terms and rules of completion of 

157 

 
 
 
end-of-year accounts under the operational programmes and the European territorial cooperation programmes, drawn up by the Certifying 
Authority pursuant to Article 7(4) of the Management of European Structural and Investment Funds Act and regulating the relationships 
between structures responsible for management and control, entered into force. 

In addition to documentary checks for legality and regularity of expenditure, which are evenly distributed throughout the accounting year 
both  to  avoid  concentration  of  workload  at  certain  times  and  maintain  a  high  level  of  effectiveness  of  such  checks  and  to  ensure  the 
possibility of timely suspension of ineligible expenditure in the certification process to the European Commission, the Certifying Authority 
performs the following checks: 

 

 

 

for quality control in Management Authorities; 

inspections at the premises of beneficiaries and on-the-spot inspections at the location of the project implementation; 

inspections  of  the  public  procurement  procedures;  with  regard  to  these  inspections,  based  on  a  risk  analysis  of  the  most  common 
errors, the control procedure has been streamlined and both the number and the intensity of inspections have been increased.  

An  order  of  the  Minister  for  Finance  designated  officials  of  the  Certifying  Authority  authorised  to  access  the  risk  scoring  tool  of  the 
European Commission in the field of fraud and irregularities ARACHNE.   

In view of the need to enhance the knowledge and skills of officials involved in verification of expenditure on public procurement, in 2015 
the  Audit  of  EU  Funds  EA  continued  its  practice  of  sharing  the  approach  applied.  The  Audit  Authority  took  part  in  training  events 
presenting  examples  of  irregularities  from  the  practice  of  the  Commission  and  national  control  authorities.  In  2015,  a  total  of  149 
employees  of  Managing  Authorities  and  beneficiaries  of  operational  programmes  participated  in  training  regarding  the  approach  of  the 
Audit Authority to the inspection of public procurement.  

Ministry of the Economy: Based on its experience so far, the Managing Authority has established that the most common errors made by 
beneficiaries  are  related  to  contractor  selection  procedures.  For  this  reason,  an  opportunity  is  provided  for  preliminary  review  of  the 
documentation, and in over 80 % of the cases beneficiaries use it. This mechanism contributes to increasing the effectiveness of actions for 
detecting and correcting errors at a stage where their influence can be limited or fully eliminated. 

NF: At present the Certifying Authority is in the process of streamlining the analysis performed in order to identify a possible systemic 
nature of errors identified in the course of inspections.   

Directorate General ‘Urban and Regional Development’ (DG URD), MRDPW: In the field of further action it shall be noted that during the 
new  programming  period  the  Managing  Authority  of  Operational  Programme  ‘Regional  Development’  introduced  the  ARACHNE  tool 
developed by the European Commission for the purposes of enhancing the measures against irregularities and fraud in the implementation 

158 

Question 1.2.2. 

Further 
to 
measures 
enhance 
the 
effectiveness  of 
actions to detect 
and 
correct 
errors 
concerning 
expenditure, 
which 
previously 
or 
declared 
certified  to  the 
Commission. 

was 

Question 1.3.1. 

Risk 
and 

analysis 
estimated 

 
 
level  of  error  in 
the  major  EU 
spending  areas 
(common 
agricultural 
policy,  regional 
urban 
and 
policy, 
employment, 
social 
and inclusion). 

affairs 

of projects and increasing the reliability of the control systems, and identifying potentially high-risk situations before providing funding.   

Ministry of the Economy: Regular risk assessments are carried out under Operational Programme ‘Development of the Competitiveness of 
the Bulgarian Economy’ 2007—2013 and Operational Programme ‘Innovations and Competitiveness’ 2014—2020, and risks are identified 
and documented in a risk register. Risks, including residual risk, are assessed and corrective actions are identified and followed up. 

During the programming period 2014—2020 a new unified management information system for management and monitoring of EU funds 
in Bulgaria (UMIS 2020) was introduced and is used  

. Project reporting and verification are fully electronic, which reduces the risk of errors in calculating and documenting expenditure subject 
to reimbursement. 

To  limit  the  risk  of  error  in  reimbursement  of  expenditure,  the  Managing  Authority  of  Operational  Programme  ‘Development  of  the 
Competitiveness of the Bulgarian Economy’ 2007—2013 and Operational Programme ‘Innovations and Competitiveness’ 2014—2020 has 
introduced  and  implements  procedures  for  checking  the  existence  of  registered  irregularities  or  pending  inspections  of  alerts  of 
irregularities,  and  performs  checks  in  the  Early  Detection  and  Exclusion  System  (EDES),  which  already  contains  some  evidence  of 
fraudulent practices of applicants/beneficiaries, in pursuance of the implementation of Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1929 of the European 
Parliament and of the Council of 28 October 2015. 

Furthermore, the Managing Authority has introduced a procedure for fraud risk assessment. An assessment of the fraud risk in the activity 
of the Managing Authority of Operational Programme ‘Innovations and Competitiveness’ 2014—2020 was carried out, and the results are 
presented  in a  report  dated  28  October  2016.  The  risks  relating  to  the  process  of  certification  and  payments  under  the  programme  were 
identified and assessed. 

Question 1.3.2. 

Yes. 

MESc: The level of error is set depending on the basis for payment and the related verification of eligibility of expenditure. 

MTIT&C: According to the Annual Control Reports of the Audit Authority, the level of error under OP HRD 2007—2013 for each of the 
years was set below the reference 2 %. Systems audits show a high level of assurance on management and control. The European Court of 
Auditors has no findings and recommendations. 

Relationship 
between 
the 
basis 
for 
and 
payment 
levels  of  error 
in the major EU 
spending  areas 
(common 
agricultural 
policy,  regional 
and 
urban 
policy, 
employment, 
social 

affairs 

159 

 
 
and inclusion). 

Question 2.1.1. 

Links  between 
EU  priorities  in 
the  context  of 
the Europe 2020 
strategy, 
including 
Horizon 2020, 
and 
priorities. 

national 

Bulgarian National Audit Office: The National Development Programme: Bulgaria 2020 is a long-term national programme document for 
the development of the Republic of Bulgaria, which is the basis for the programming of strategic documents related to the implementation 
of both national policies and policies of the EU. The document helps optimise the programming of the development of Bulgaria  to 2020, 
providing the link between the national priorities of the Republic of Bulgaria and the objectives of the EU in the context  of the Europe 
2020 Strategy.  

The link between the priorities in the national strategic and programming documents and these of the Europe 2020 Strategy is  among the 
key aspects of studying and analysis in the performance audits carried out by the National Audit Office, including the performance audits 
of EU funds. A more clear focus on mechanisms for implementation and funding the implementation of priorities is necessary. 

MTIT&C: Operational Programme ‘Human Resources Development’  2014—2020 contributes actively to achieving two of the targets of 
the European Strategy for Smart, Sustainable, and Inclusive Growth Europe 2020. These are the targets in the fields of employment and the 
fight  against  poverty  and  social  exclusion.  The  HRD  OP  strategy  is  set  upon  the  following  three  pillars:  better  quality  employment, 
reducing poverty and promoting social inclusion, and modernisation of public policies. The OP HRD strategy also corresponds with the 
objectives of the National Development Programme Bulgaria 2020, the National Reform Programme and the Partnership Agreement. 

Operations under OP HRD are planned and developed fully in line with the Union strategy for smart, sustainable and inclusive growth and 
for  the  achievement  of  economic,  social  and  territorial  cohesion.  The  planned  operations  are  fully  in  line  with  the  Priority  Axes  and 
Investment priorities outlining specific goals framing the expected results of the implementation of OP HRD. 

Question 2.1.2. 

to 

Measures 
pursue 
synergies 
and 
complementariti
es  between  ESI 
Funds 
and 
national 
programmes . 

MAF: To ensure complementarity of rural development measures and other programmes supported by ESIF, RDP 2014—2020 envisages, 
at  the  time  of  launching  the  programmes,  to  set  up  an  interdepartmental  working  group  to  coordinate  issues  of  demarcation  and 
complementarity between individual programmes at all stages of the project cycle (selection of operations, programming, monitoring and 
evaluation). Currently a working group was established by Order No RD 09-742 of 30 September 2016 of the Minister for Agriculture and 
Food,  which  defines  and  follows  a  procedure  on  the  procedure  and  manner  of  coordinating  the  complementarity  process,  a  check  for 
double  financing  and  exchange  of  information  between  the  competent  institutions  (the  Managing  Authorities  of  the  Rural  Development 
Programme for the period 2014—2020, Operational Programme ‘Regions in Growth’ and the Territorial Cooperation Programmes 2014—
2020, and State Fund ‘Agriculture’ – Paying Agency). It is envisaged to set up an interdepartmental working group to coordinate issues of 
demarcation  and  complementarity  of  OP  ‘Science  and  Education  for  Smart  Growth’  with  regard  to  research,  support  for  innovations, 
education, training and education infrastructure.  

Bulgarian National Audit Office: In 2016 the National Audit Office started three audits on the programming and contracting of the ESIF 
assistance through the focus of the National Development Programme: Bulgaria 2020. In the course of these audits, the methodology used 
in  a  parallel  audit  of  the  European  Court  of  Auditors  and  audit  institutions  of  other  Member  States  was  applied  .  The  scope  of  audit 
included the activities for programming and contracting of assistance from the European Social Fund, the European Regional Development 

160 

 
 
 
Question 2.2.1. 

to 

Performance 
measurement 
link 
system 
EU  measures, 
operations 
or 
projects  to  EU 
priorities/Europ
e 
2020 
objectives  and 
targets. 

Fund  and  the  European  Agricultural  Fund  for  Rural  Development  and  how  they  contributed  to  achieving  the  objectives  of  the  National 
Development Programme: ‘Bulgaria 2020’ for the period 1 January 2014 — 31 December 2016. 

To evaluate the created prerequisites for effective and efficient use of the assistance from the European Union and to minimise in a timely 
manner the risks of the European Commission suspending interim payments, an audit of the fulfilment of the preliminary conditions for 
ESIS 2014—2020 is carried out.  

The audit is included in the Audit Programme of the National Audit Office for year 2016, but at the same time is conducted as a parallel 
audit on the ‘Contribution of Structural Funds to achieving the targets of Europe 2020 in the fields of education and employment’, led by 
the ‘Structural Funds VII’ Working Group with the SAI Contact Committee. The Republic of Bulgaria is involved as an observer. 

MTIT&C: The OP HRD strategy corresponds with the objectives of the National  Development Programme Bulgaria 2020,  the National 
Reform Programme and the Partnership Agreement. The operational programme addresses the objectives of these documents regarding the 
quality  of  the  workforce  and  investment  in  human  resources,  providing  employment  opportunities  and  raising  labour  income,  reducing 
poverty  and  promoting  social  inclusion,  improving  the  quality  and  effectiveness  of  health  services,  and  strengthening  the  institutional 
environment in terms of labour market, social services, healthcare and equal opportunity and non-discrimination. 

A large portion of the resources of the operational programme (60 %) is allocated for achieving the objectives of the employment policy. 
With support from the European Social Fund, solutions are sought to problems relating to the high level of unemployment among young 
people and older people and for reducing the high share of people not involved in training or employment. The support under OP HRD for 
the labour market area complements the national instruments aimed at supporting employment and reducing unemployment in Bulgaria. 

The attainment of the targets of the Europe 2020 Strategy also depends on the contribution of the cohesion policy, and one of the areas of 
intervention enshrined in the European Platform against Poverty and Social Exclusion is the provision of funding from the European Social 
Fund to support policies for fighting poverty and promoting social inclusion. The other key priority of OP HRD is social inclusion and fight 
against poverty, financed under priority axis 2. Close to 40 % are allocated to this priority, thus providing resources for the national policies 
planned for the period until 2020, which are described in detail in the National Reform Programme and other relevant national strategic 
documents. These policies aim at addressing the considerable challenge in fighting poverty identified in Bulgaria. 

SFA:  With regard to rural development operations, with an order of the Minister for Agriculture and Food a working group was set up to 
coordinate the complementarity between RDP 2014—2020 and Operational Programme ‘Regions in Growth’ throughout the programming 
period of programme implementation in order not to allow double financing of expenditure. 

MTIT&C: The strategy of Operational Programme ‘Transport and Transport Infrastructure’ 2014—2020 contributes to the targets of the 
Europe 2020 Strategy and is consistent with the guidelines for the development of the European transport policy and the Trans-European 
transport  network,  with  the  national  policies,  as  well  as  with  the  conclusions  and  recommendations  defined  in  the  analysis  of  socio-
economic development and the strategy of the Partnership Agreement.  

Key documents related to the strategy of OPTTI 2014-2020 are as follows: 

-  The  Strategy  ‘Europe  2020’  for  smart,  sustainable  and  inclusive  growth  ensures  that  the  objectives  and  priorities  of  OPTTI  are  in 

161 

 
 
compliance with the EU targets to achieve economic, social and territorial cohesion. OPTTI contributes to all three pillars of the strategy 
with an emphasis on sustainable growth to promote a greener and more competitive economy with a more efficient use of resources, which, 
in relation to the transport sector, suggests modernisation and decarbonisation of the transport sector to achieve increased competitiveness 
through  a  combination  of  measures,  such  as  intelligent  traffic  management  through  modern  navigation  and  information  systems  for  the 
Black  Sea  and  the  Danube  River,  better  logistics,  pursuing  the  reduction  of  CO2  emissions  for  motor  vehicles,  aviation  and  maritime 
sectors, setting common standards and developing the necessary infrastructure, and to the accelerating of the implementation of strategic 
projects with high added value for Europe, to address critical bottlenecks, in particular cross-border sections and intermodal nodes.  

- The National Reform Programme, a national document, which is updated annually in the implementation of Strategy ‘Europe 2020’. 

- The National Development Programme: Bulgaria 2020 (NDP BG2020) is the leading strategic and programming document detailing the 
objectives of the development policies of the country up to 2020.  

- White Paper ‘Roadmap to a Single European Transport Area’ includes measures to ensure growth in transport and mobility support. 

-  The  Guidelines  for  the  development  of  the  Trans-European  Transport  Network  (Regulation  (EU)  No  1315/2013)  aim  to  contribute  to 
achieving  the  sustainable  mobility  of  people  and  goods  and  promoting  the  development  of  the  domestic  market  and  the  overall 
competitiveness of the European Community. 

- The National Spatial Development Concept for the period 2013—2025 includes a set of priorities, one of which is to develop the national 
transport infrastructure as a part of the Trans-European Transport Network.  

- The Strategy for the Development of the Transport System of the Republic of Bulgaria until 2020 defined the following objectives of the 
national transport policy: 

Achieving economic efficiency  

Development of sustainable transport sector  

Improvement of the regional and social development and commitment  

The overall objective of OPTTI 2014—2020, like that of OPT 2007—2013, is ‘Development of a sustainable transport system’, which is in 
compliance with the thematic objectives specified above.  

The implementation of projects for developing the transport system, contributing to the effective connectivity of the transport network and 
to  removing  sections  with  insufficient  capacity  in  it,  reducing  congestion,  noise  and  pollution,  improving  safety,  promoting  the  use  of 
environmentally  friendly  modes  of  transport,  will  continue.  The  achievement  of  the  overall  objective  of  the  programme  and  hence  its 
contribution to TO 4 (Supporting the shifts towards a low-carbon economy in all sectors) and TO 7 (Promoting sustainable transport and 
removing  sections  with  insufficient  capacity  in  all  key  network  infrastructures)  will  contribute  to  the  realisation  of  the  concept  of 
competitive and sustainable transport system, as well as to achieving the desired sustainable mobility of people and goods, promoting the 
development  of  the  domestic  market  and  the  overall  competitiveness  of  the  European  Community,  territorial,  economic  and  social 
cohesion, public welfare, safety and security of European citizens, taking into account the environmental factors, such as climate change, 

162 

 
 
air pollution and protected areas.  

The  implementation  of  the  specific  measures  under  OPTTI  will  have  a  particular  impact  and  contribution  to  national  targets  on  climate 
change. In the Third National Action Plan on Climate Change, the transport sector is identified as one of the major sources of greenhouse 
gas emissions. The reasons for this include the privatisation of road transport, the significant reduction of subsidies for railway transport 
and  the  closure  of  railway  routes  leading  to  a  shift  in  the  transport  structure  from  rail  to  road.  Private  cars  have  the  most  significant 
contribution to greenhouse gas emissions followed by heavy duty vehicles. In 2009 private cars and heavy duty vehicles were respectively 
responsible for 60 % and 21 % of the total emissions of the transport sector. Additionally, after the completion of Line 3 of the Sofia Metro 
in 2020, the road traffic is expected to decrease by 21,000 vehicles/day, which will result in reduction of traffic congestions and will create 
conditions for increasing the average speed of public transport along the central routes. 

The measures to be implemented under the Action Plan are focused on the following areas: 

- Reduction of transport emissions - Reduction of fuel consumption  

- Diversification of transport 

- Informing and training consumers. OPTTI provides funding for the following specific measures with a direct effect on all four sectors, 
contributing to the achievement of national targets on climate change: 

• 

- Under priority axis 1 – increasing the share of railway transport; 

-  Under  priority  axis  2  – modernisation  of  existing  road  infrastructure  to  ensure  optimum  speed  and  optimum  driving  modes  of 

• 
automobile engines; 

• 
- Under priority axis 3 – reduction of the relative share of trips with private motor vehicles through improvement and development 
of urban public transport; increasing the share of public electric transport and development and construction of intermodal terminals for 
combined transport. 

Seven  specific  objectives  have  been  identified  as  part  of  the  overall  objective  of  OPTTI  2014-2020  and  accordingly  the  investment 
priorities of TO 7 and TO 4. 

The  first  specific  objective  is  ‘Increasing  railway  traffic  of  passenger  and  freight  through  improving  the  quality  of  the  TEN-T  railway 
infrastructure’.  

The second specific objective is ‘Removal of bottlenecks in the TEN-T road network’.  

The third specific objective is ‘Increased intermodal transport’.  

The fourth specific objective is ‘Increased use of metro’.  

The fifth specific objective is ‘Improved transport management through introduction of innovative systems’.  

The sixth specific objective is ‘Improved management of the railway network’.  

163 

 
 
The  seventh  specific  objective  is  ‘Establishment  of  necessary  conditions  for  successful  completion  of  OPT  2007—2013  and 
implementation of OPTTI 2014—2020, strengthening the administrative capacity and public awareness’. 

The  strategy  of  OPTTI  2014—2020  ensures  continuity  and  logical  sequence  of  investments  in  programming  period  2007—2013, 
guaranteeing the completion of main directions in which investments are already made. The following priority axes have been identified in 
the programme: 

1. 

2. 

3. 

Development of railway infrastructure along the ‘core’ TEN-T 

Development of road infrastructure along the ‘core’ and ‘comprehensive’ TEN-T 

Improvement of intermodal transport services for passengers and freights and development of sustainable urban transport 

Innovations in management and services – establishment of modern infrastructure for traffic management and transport safety and 

4. 
security improvement 

5. 

Technical Assistance.  

In addition to the investments under OPTTI 2014—2020, it is planned to seek investments through public-private partnership, particularly 
for development of ports and airports. Investments for development of air, river and sea transport, planned for funding under OPTTI, are 
entirely directed towards the development of intelligent systems to improve services and management of air, river and sea transport. Also, 
where applicable, funding from the Connecting Europe Facility (CEF) will be used. 

SFA:   With regard to rural development operations related to investments in fixed  assets, for the programming period  2014—2020 it  is 
envisaged to apply only two approaches to assessing the reasonableness of costs: reference costs and comparing different (at least three) 
offers. It is not envisaged to apply exception based on the amount of the costs requested for assistance. 

SFA:  With regard to the cost of financing approved after conducted public procurement procedures, for the purpose of RDP 2014—2020 it 
is  envisaged  to  develop  Guidelines  for  the  implementation  of  the  Public  Procurement  Act,  which  the  contracting  entities  eligible  under 
different  sub-measures  of  RDP  2014—2020  will  be  obliged  to  implement.  The  Managing  Authority  will  develop  standard  criteria  for 
award  by  types  of  investment  activities  in  relation  to  the  implementation  of  the  procedures  under  the  Public  Procurement  Act.  These 
criteria  will  be  coordinated  with  competent  institutions  (IPA,  AOP)  and  will  be  included  as  part  of  the  Guidelines.    Control  will  be 
exercised in four stages: ex-ante control, ex-post control, control at the stage of authorisation for contract implementation, and, last, control 
at the stage of on-the-spot verification. 

Question 2.2.2. 

Framework 
for 
the  management 
of  ESI  Funds  in 
order to achieve 
result-
a 

MTIT&C:  The  OP  HRD  strategy  corresponds  with  the  objectives  of  the  National  Development  Programme  Bulgaria 2020,  the National 
Reform Programme and the Partnership Agreement. The operational programme addresses the objectives of these documents regarding the 
quality  of  the  workforce  and  investment  in  human  resources,  providing  employment  opportunities  and  raising  labour  income,  reducing 
poverty  and  promoting  social  inclusion,  improving  the  quality  and  effectiveness  of  health  services,  and  strengthening  the  institutional 
environment in terms of labour market, social services, healthcare and equal opportunity and non-discrimination. 

A large portion of the resources of the operational programme (60 %) is allocated for achieving the objectives of the employment policy. 

164 

 
 
oriented  system 
and 
impact  of 
EU projects. 

With support from the European Social Fund, solutions are sought to problems relating to the high level of unemployment among young 
people and older people and for reducing the high share of people not involved in training or employment. The support under OP HRD for 
the labour market area complements the national instruments aimed at supporting employment and reducing unemployment in Bulgaria. 

The attainment of the targets of the Europe 2020 Strategy also depends on the contribution of the cohesion policy, and one of the areas of 
intervention enshrined in the European Platform against Poverty and Social Exclusion is the provision of funding from the European Social 
Fund to support policies for fighting poverty and promoting social inclusion. The other key priority of OP HRD is social inclusion and fight 
against poverty, financed under priority axis 2. Close to 40 % are allocated to this priority, thus providing resources for the national policies 
planned for the period until 2020, which are described in detail in the National Reform Programme and other relevant national strategic 
documents. These policies aim at addressing the considerable challenge in fighting poverty identified in Bulgaria. 

SFA:  With regard to rural development operations, with an order of the Minister for Agriculture and Food a working group was set up to 
coordinate the complementarity between RDP 2014—2020 and Operational Programme ‘Regions in Growth’ throughout the programming 
period of programme implementation in order not to allow double financing of expenditure. 

MTIT&C: The strategy of Operational Programme ‘Transport and Transport Infrastructure’ 2014—2020 contributes to the targets of the 
Europe 2020 Strategy and is consistent with the guidelines for the development of the European transport policy and the Trans-European 
transport  network,  with  the  national  policies,  as  well  as  with  the  conclusions  and  recommendations  defined  in  the  analysis  of  socio-
economic development and the strategy of the Partnership Agreement.  

Key documents related to the strategy of OPTTI 2014-2020 are as follows: 

- The  Strategy  ‘Europe  2020’  for  smart,  sustainable  and  inclusive  growth  ensures  that  the  objectives  and  priorities  of  OPTTI  are  in 
compliance with the EU targets to achieve economic, social and territorial cohesion. OPTTI contributes to all three pillars of the strategy 
with an emphasis on sustainable growth to promote a greener and more competitive economy with a more efficient use of resources, which, 
in relation to the transport sector, suggests modernisation and decarbonisation of the transport sector to achieve increased competitiveness 
through  a  combination  of  measures,  such  as  intelligent  traffic  management  through  modern  navigation  and  information  systems  for  the 
Black  Sea  and  the  Danube  River,  better  logistics,  pursuing  the  reduction  of  CO2 emissions  for  motor  vehicles,  aviation  and  maritime 
sectors, setting common standards and developing the necessary infrastructure, and to the accelerating of the implementation of strategic 
projects with high added value for Europe, to address critical bottlenecks, in particular cross-border sections and intermodal nodes.  

- The National Reform Programme, a national document, which is updated annually in the implementation of Strategy ‘Europe 2020’. 

- The National Development Programme: Bulgaria 2020 (NDP BG2020) is the leading strategic and programming document detailing the 
objectives of the development policies of the country up to 2020.  

- White Paper ‘Roadmap to a Single European Transport Area’ includes measures to ensure growth in transport and mobility support. 

- The  Guidelines  for  the  development  of  the  Trans-European  Transport  Network  (Regulation  (EU)  No 1315/2013)  aim  to  contribute  to 
achieving  the  sustainable  mobility  of  people  and  goods  and  promoting  the  development  of  the  domestic  market  and  the  overall 
competitiveness of the European Community. 

165 

 
 
- The National Spatial Development Concept for the period 2013—2025 includes a set of priorities, one of which is to develop the national 
transport infrastructure as a part of the Trans-European Transport Network.  

- The Strategy for the Development of the Transport System of the Republic of Bulgaria until 2020 defined the following objectives of the 
national transport policy: 

Achieving economic efficiency  

Development of sustainable transport sector  

Improvement of the regional and social development and commitment  

The overall objective of OPTTI 2014—2020, like that of OPT 2007—2013, is ‘Development of a sustainable transport system’, which is in 
compliance with the thematic objectives specified above.  

The implementation of projects for developing the transport system, contributing to the effective connectivity of the transport network and 
to  removing  sections  with  insufficient  capacity  in  it,  reducing  congestion,  noise  and  pollution,  improving  safety,  promoting  the  use  of 
environmentally  friendly  modes  of  transport,  will  continue.  The  achievement  of  the  overall  objective  of  the  programme  and  hence  its 
contribution to TO 4 (Supporting the shifts towards a low-carbon economy in all sectors) and TO 7 (Promoting sustainable transport and 
removing  sections  with  insufficient  capacity  in  all  key  network  infrastructures)  will  contribute  to  the  realisation  of  the  concept  of 
competitive and sustainable transport system, as well as to achieving the desired sustainable mobility of people and goods, promoting the 
development  of  the  domestic  market  and  the  overall  competitiveness  of  the  European  Community,  territorial,  economic  and  social 
cohesion, public welfare, safety and security of European citizens, taking into account the environmental factors, such as climate change, 
air pollution and protected areas.  

The  implementation  of  the  specific  measures  under  OPTTI  will  have  a  particular  impact  and  contribution  to  national  targets  on  
climate  change.  In  the  Third  National  Action  Plan  on  Climate  Change,  the  transport  sector  is  identified  as  one  of  the  major  sources  of 
greenhouse gas emissions. The reasons for this include the privatisation of road transport, the significant reduction of subsidies for railway 
transport  and  the  closure  of  railway  routes  leading  to  a  shift  in  the  transport  structure  from  rail  to  road.  Private  cars  have  the  most 
significant contribution to greenhouse gas emissions followed by heavy duty vehicles. In 2009 private cars and heavy duty vehicles were 
respectively responsible for 60 % and 21 % of the total emissions of the transport sector. Additionally, after the completion of Line 3 of the 
Sofia Metro in 2020, the road traffic is expected to decrease by 21,000 vehicles/day, which will result in reduction of traffic congestions 
and will create conditions for increasing the average speed of public transport along the central routes. 

The measures to be implemented under the Action Plan are focused on the following areas: 

- Reduction of transport emissions 

- Reduction of fuel consumption  

- Diversification of transport 

- Informing and training consumers. 

166 

 
 
OPTTI  provides  funding  for  the  following  specific  measures  with  a  direct  effect  on  all  four  sectors,  contributing  to  the  achievement  of 
national targets on climate change:  

  Under priority axis 1 – increasing the share of railway transport; 

  Under  priority  axis 2  –  modernisation  of  existing  road  infrastructure  to  ensure  optimum  speed  and  optimum  driving  modes  of 

automobile engines; 

  Under priority axis 3 – reduction of the relative share of trips with private motor vehicles through improvement and development of 
urban public transport; increasing the share of public electric transport and development and construction of intermodal terminals for 
combined transport. 

Seven  specific  objectives  have  been  identified  as  part  of  the  overall  objective  of  OPTTI 2014-2020  and  accordingly  the  investment 
priorities of TO 7 and TO 4. 

The  first  specific  objective  is  ‘Increasing  railway  traffic  of  passenger  and  freight  through  improving  the  quality  of  the  TEN-T railway 
infrastructure’.  

The second specific objective is ‘Removal of bottlenecks in the TEN-T road network’.  

The third specific objective is ‘Increased intermodal transport’.  

The fourth specific objective is ‘Increased use of metro’.  

The fifth specific objective is ‘Improved transport management through introduction of innovative systems’.  

The sixth specific objective is ‘Improved management of the railway network’.  

The  seventh  specific  objective  is  ‘Establishment  of  necessary  conditions  for  successful  completion  of  OPT 2007—2013  and 
implementation of OPTTI 2014—2020, strengthening the administrative capacity and public awareness’. 

The  strategy  of  OPTTI 2014—2020  ensures  continuity  and  logical  sequence  of  investments  in  programming  period  2007—2013, 
guaranteeing the completion of main directions in which investments are already made. The following priority axes have been identified in 
the programme:  

1. 

2. 

3. 

Development of railway infrastructure along the ‘core’ TEN-T 

Development of road infrastructure along the ‘core’ and ‘comprehensive’ TEN-T 

Improvement of intermodal transport services for passengers and freights and development of sustainable urban transport 

Innovations in management and services – establishment of modern infrastructure for traffic management and transport safety and 

4. 
security improvement 

5. 

Technical Assistance.  

167 

 
 
In addition to the investments under OPTTI 2014—2020, it is planned to seek investments through public-private partnership, particularly 
for development of ports and airports. Investments for development of air, river and sea transport, planned for funding under OPTTI, are 
entirely directed towards the development of intelligent systems to improve services and management of air, river and sea transport. Also, 
where applicable, funding from the Connecting Europe Facility (CEF) will be used. 

SFA:   With regard to rural development operations related to investments in fixed  assets, for the programming period  2014—2020 it  is 
envisaged to apply only two approaches to assessing the reasonableness of costs: reference costs and comparing different (at least three) 
offers. It is not envisaged to apply exception based on the amount of the costs requested for assistance. 

SFA:  With regard to the cost of financing approved after conducted public procurement procedures, for the purpose of RDP 2014—2020 it 
is  envisaged  to  develop  Guidelines  for  the  implementation  of  the  Public  Procurement  Act,  which  the  contracting  entities  eligible  under 
different  sub-measures  of  RDP  2014—2020  will  be  obliged  to  implement.  The  Managing  Authority  will  develop  standard  criteria  for 
award  by  types  of  investment  activities  in  relation  to  the  implementation  of  the  procedures  under  the  Public  Procurement  Act.  These 
criteria will be coordinated with competent institutions (IPA, AOP) and will be included as part of the Guidelines. Control will be exercised 
in four stages: ex-ante control, ex-post control, control at the stage of authorisation for contract implementation, and, last, control at the 
stage of on-the-spot verification. 

Ministry of the Economy:  During the 2007—2013 programming period the authorities responsible for coordination, management, control 
and  audit  of  resources  from  the  EU  Structural  Funds  were  designated  in  Council  of  Ministers  Decision  No  965  of  16  December  2005. 
During  that  programming  period,  the  national  regulatory  framework  for  management  of  resources  from  the  EU  Structural  Funds  was 
regulated by by-laws and instructions of the Minister for Finance – DNF, which regulated the terms, conditions, procedure and time-limits 
for  administration  of  the  operational  programmes  by  managing  authorities  and  intermediate  bodies  (in  cases  of  delegation  of  powers). 
Detailed  rules  for  eligibility  of  expenditure  under  individual  operational  programmes  were  adopted  with  Council  of  Ministers  Decrees. 
With  regard  to  Operational  Programme  ‘Development  of  the  Competitiveness  of  the  Bulgarian  Economy’  2007—2013,  co-financed 
through the European Regional Development Fund, the rules were stipulated in Council of Ministers Decree No 236 of 2007.  

During the 2014—2020 programming period the authorities responsible for management, control, coordination and audit of European 
Structural and Investment Funds are designated in Council of Ministers Decision No 792 of 17 December 2013. The statutory framework 
provided for in the Management of European Structural and Investment Funds Act has been introduced and is implemented. By-laws (a 
Council of Ministers Decree and ordinances of the Council of Ministers, and an ordinance of the Minister for Finance) for the 
implementation of ZUSESIF have been adopted. 

Question 2.2.3. 

Member 
State 
actions to define 

MTIT&C:  The  OP  HRD  strategy  corresponds  with  the  objectives  of  the  National  Development  Programme  Bulgaria 2020,  the National 
Reform Programme and the Partnership Agreement. The operational programme addresses the objectives of these documents regarding the 
quality  of  the  workforce  and  investment  in  human  resources,  providing  employment  opportunities  and  raising  labour  income,  reducing 
poverty  and  promoting  social  inclusion,  improving  the  quality  and  effectiveness  of  health  services,  and  strengthening  the  institutional 

168 

 
 
 
 
or 
improve 
result  indicators 
at  EU  project 
level. 

environment in terms of labour market, social services, healthcare and equal opportunity and non-discrimination. 

A large portion of the resources of the operational programme (60 %) is allocated for achieving the objectives of the employment policy. 
With support from the European Social Fund, solutions are sought to problems relating to the high level of unemployment among young 
people and older people and for reducing the high share of people not involved in training or employment. The support under OP HRD for 
the labour market area complements the national instruments aimed at supporting employment and reducing unemployment in Bulgaria. 

The attainment of the targets of the Europe 2020 Strategy also depends on the contribution of the cohesion policy, and one of the areas of 
intervention enshrined in the European Platform against Poverty and Social Exclusion is the provision of funding from the European Social 
Fund to support policies for fighting poverty and promoting social inclusion. The other key priority of OP HRD is social inclusion and fight 
against poverty, financed under priority axis 2. Close to 40 % are allocated to this priority, thus providing resources for the national policies 
planned for the period until 2020, which are described in detail in the National Reform Programme and other relevant national strategic 
documents. These policies aim at addressing the considerable challenge in fighting poverty identified in Bulgaria. 

DFZ:  With regard to rural development operations, with an order of the Minister for Agriculture and Food a working group was set up to 
coordinate the complementarity between RDP 2014—2020 and Operational Programme ‘Regions in Growth’ throughout the programming 
period of programme implementation in order not to allow double financing of expenditure. 

MTITC:  The  strategy  of  Operational  Programme  ‘Transport  and  Transport  Infrastructure’ 2014—2020  contributes  to  the  targets  of  the 
Europe 2020 Strategy and is consistent with the guidelines for the development of the European transport policy and the Trans-European 
transport  network,  with  the  national  policies,  as  well  as  with  the  conclusions  and  recommendations  defined  in  the  analysis  of  socio-
economic development and the strategy of the Partnership Agreement.  

Key documents related to the strategy of OPTTI 2014-2020 are as follows: 

- The  Strategy  ‘Europe  2020’  for  smart,  sustainable  and  inclusive  growth  ensures  that  the  objectives  and  priorities  of  OPTTI  are  in 
compliance with the EU targets to achieve economic, social and territorial cohesion. OPTTI contributes to all three pillars of the strategy 
with an emphasis on sustainable growth to promote a greener and more competitive economy with a more efficient use of resources, which, 
in relation to the transport sector, suggests modernisation and decarbonisation of the transport sector to achieve increased competitiveness 
through  a  combination  of  measures,  such  as  intelligent  traffic  management  through  modern  navigation  and  information  systems  for  the 
Black  Sea  and  the  Danube  River,  better  logistics,  pursuing  the  reduction  of  CO2 emissions  for  motor  vehicles,  aviation  and  maritime 
sectors, setting common standards and developing the necessary infrastructure, and to the accelerating of the implementation  of strategic 
projects with high added value for Europe, to address critical bottlenecks, in particular cross-border sections and intermodal nodes.  

- The National Reform Programme, a national document, which is updated annually in the implementation of Strategy ‘Europe 2020’. 

- The National Development Programme: Bulgaria 2020 (NDP BG2020) is the leading strategic and programming document detailing the 
objectives of the development policies of the country up to 2020.  

- White Paper ‘Roadmap to a Single European Transport Area’ includes measures to ensure growth in transport and mobility support. 

- The  Guidelines  for  the  development  of  the  Trans-European  Transport  Network  (Regulation  (EU)  No 1315/2013)  aim  to  contribute  to 

169 

 
 
achieving  the  sustainable  mobility  of  people  and  goods  and  promoting  the  development  of  the  domestic  market  and  the  overall 
competitiveness of the European Community. 

- The National Spatial Development Concept for the period 2013—2025 includes a set of priorities, one of which is to develop the national 
transport infrastructure as a part of the Trans-European Transport Network.  

- The Strategy for the Development of the Transport System of the Republic of Bulgaria until 2020 defined the following objectives of the 
national transport policy: 

Achieving economic efficiency  

Development of sustainable transport sector  

Improvement of the regional and social development and commitment  

The overall objective of OPTTI 2014—2020, like that of OPT 2007—2013, is ‘Development of a sustainable transport system’, which is in 
compliance with the thematic objectives specified above.  

The implementation of projects for developing the transport system, contributing to the effective connectivity of the transport network and 
to  removing  sections  with  insufficient  capacity  in  it,  reducing  congestion,  noise  and  pollution,  improving  safety,  promoting  the  use  of 
environmentally  friendly  modes  of  transport,  will  continue.  The  achievement  of  the  overall  objective  of  the  programme  and  hence  its 
contribution to TO 4 (Supporting the shifts towards a low-carbon economy in all sectors) and TO 7 (Promoting sustainable transport and 
removing  sections  with  insufficient  capacity  in  all  key  network  infrastructures)  will  contribute  to  the  realisation  of  the  concept  of 
competitive and sustainable transport system, as well as to achieving the desired sustainable mobility of people and goods, promoting the 
development  of  the  domestic  market  and  the  overall  competitiveness  of  the  European  Community,  territorial,  economic  and  social 
cohesion, public welfare, safety and security of European citizens, taking into account the environmental factors, such as climate change, 
air pollution and protected areas.  

The  implementation  of  the  specific  measures  under  OPTTI  will  have  a  particular  impact  and  contribution  to  national  targets  on  
climate  change.  In  the  Third  National  Action  Plan  on  Climate  Change,  the  transport  sector  is  identified  as  one  of  the  major  sources  of 
greenhouse gas emissions. The reasons for this include the privatisation of road transport, the significant reduction of subsidies for railway 
transport  and  the  closure  of  railway  routes  leading  to  a  shift  in  the  transport  structure  from  rail  to  road.  Private  cars  have  the  most 
significant contribution to greenhouse gas emissions followed by heavy duty vehicles. In 2009 private cars and heavy duty vehicles were 
respectively responsible for 60 % and 21 % of the total emissions of the transport sector. Additionally, after the completion of Line 3 of the 
Sofia Metro in 2020, the road traffic is expected to decrease by 21,000 vehicles/day, which will result in reduction of traffic congestions 
and will create conditions for increasing the average speed of public transport along the central routes. 

The measures to be implemented under the Action Plan are focused on the following areas: 

- Reduction of transport emissions 

- Reduction of fuel consumption  

170 

 
 
- Diversification of transport 

- Informing and training consumers. 

OPTTI  provides  funding  for  the  following  specific  measures  with  a  direct  effect  on  all  four  sectors,  contributing  to  the  achievement  of 
national targets on climate change:  

  Under priority axis 1 – increasing the share of railway transport; 

  Under  priority  axis 2  –  modernisation  of  existing  road  infrastructure  to  ensure  optimum  speed  and  optimum  driving  modes  of 

automobile engines; 

  Under priority axis 3 – reduction of the relative share of trips with private motor vehicles through improvement and development  of 
urban public transport; increasing the share of public electric transport and development and construction of intermodal terminals for 
combined transport. 

Seven  specific  objectives  have  been  identified  as  part  of  the  overall  objective  of  OPTTI 2014-2020  and  accordingly  the  investment 
priorities of TO 7 and TO 4. 

The  first  specific  objective  is  ‘Increasing  railway  traffic  of  passenger  and  freight  through  improving  the  quality  of  the  TEN-T railway 
infrastructure’.  

The second specific objective is ‘Removal of bottlenecks in the TEN-T road network’.  

The third specific objective is ‘Increased intermodal transport’.  

The fourth specific objective is ‘Increased use of metro’.  

The fifth specific objective is ‘Improved transport management through introduction of innovative systems’.  

The sixth specific objective is ‘Improved management of the railway network’.  

The  seventh  specific  objective  is  ‘Establishment  of  necessary  conditions  for  successful  completion  of  OPT 2007—2013  and 
implementation of OPTTI 2014—2020, strengthening the administrative capacity and public awareness’. 

The  strategy  of  OPTTI 2014—2020  ensures  continuity  and  logical  sequence  of  investments  in  programming  period  2007—2013, 
guaranteeing the completion of main directions in which investments are already made. The following priority axes have been identified in 
the programme:  

1. 

2. 

3. 

4. 

Development of railway infrastructure along the ‘core’ TEN-T 

Development of road infrastructure along the ‘core’ and ‘comprehensive’ TEN-T 

Improvement of intermodal transport services for passengers and freights and development of sustainable urban transport 

Innovations in management and services – establishment of modern infrastructure for traffic management and transport safety and 

171 

 
 
security improvement 

5. 

Technical Assistance.  

In addition to the investments under OPTTI 2014—2020, it is planned to seek investments through public-private partnership, particularly 
for development of ports and airports. Investments for development of air, river and sea transport, planned for funding under OPTTI, are 
entirely directed towards the development of intelligent systems to improve services and management of air, river and sea transport. Also, 
where applicable, funding from the Connecting Europe Facility (CEF) will be used. 

SFA:   With regard to rural development operations related to investments in fixed  assets, for the programming period  2014—2020 it  is 
envisaged to apply only two approaches to assessing the reasonableness of costs: reference costs and comparing different (at least three) 
offers. It is not envisaged to apply exception based on the amount of the costs requested for assistance. 

SFA:  With regard to the cost of financing approved after conducted public procurement procedures, for the purpose of RDP 2014—2020 it 
is  envisaged  to  develop  Guidelines  for  the  implementation  of  the  Public  Procurement  Act,  which  the  contracting  entities  eligible  under 
different  sub-measures  of  RDP  2014—2020  will  be  obliged  to  implement.  The  Managing  Authority  will  develop  standard  criteria  for 
award  by  types  of  investment  activities  in  relation  to  the  implementation  of  the  procedures  under  the  Public  Procurement  Act.  These 
criteria will be coordinated with competent institutions (IPA, AOP) and will be included as part of the Guidelines. Control will be exercised 
in four stages: ex-ante control, ex-post control, control at the stage of authorisation for contract implementation, and, last, control at the 
stage of on-the-spot verification. 

Yes. 

Ministry  of  the  Economy:    Results  at  project  level  are  monitored  with  the  help  of  performance  indicators  and  result  indicators.  The 
procedures for the 2014—2020 programming period envisage the reporting of individual indicators at project level based on the financial 
results  of  beneficiaries  for  a  period  of  three  years  after  the  completion  of  the  project  implementation.  Achieved  values  will  also  be 
controlled in the cases of significant discrepancies between planned and achieved values, and penalties in the form of financial corrections 
will be imposed. 

MTIT&C:  The  OP  HRD  strategy  corresponds  with  the  objectives  of  the  National  Development  Programme  Bulgaria 2020,  the National 
Reform Programme and the Partnership Agreement. The operational programme addresses the objectives of these documents regarding the 
quality  of  the  workforce  and  investment  in  human  resources,  providing  employment  opportunities  and  raising  labour  income,  reducing 
poverty  and  promoting  social  inclusion,  improving  the  quality  and  effectiveness  of  health  services,  and  strengthening  the  institutional 
environment in terms of labour market, social services, healthcare and equal opportunity and non-discrimination. 

A large portion of the resources of the operational programme (60 %) is allocated for achieving the objectives of the employment policy. 
With support from the European Social Fund, solutions are sought to problems relating to the high level of unemployment among young 
people and older people and for reducing the high share of people not involved in training or employment. The support under OP HRD for 
the labour market area complements the national instruments aimed at supporting employment and reducing unemployment in Bulgaria. 

172 

Question 2.2.4. 

to 
the 

Performance 
measurement 
system 
monitor 
achievement 
objectives at EU 
measure, 
operations 

or 

 
 
 
project 
level 
and  to  monitor 
the  output  and 
result  indicators 
at  EU  measure, 
operations 
or 
project level. 

The attainment of the targets of the Europe 2020 Strategy also depends on the contribution of the cohesion policy, and one of the areas of 
intervention enshrined in the European Platform against Poverty and Social Exclusion is the provision of funding from the European Social 
Fund to support policies for fighting poverty and promoting social inclusion. The other key priority of OP HRD is social inclusion and fight 
against poverty, financed under priority axis 2. Close to 40 % are allocated to this priority, thus providing resources for the national policies 
planned for the period until 2020, which are described in detail in the National Reform Programme and other relevant national strategic 
documents. These policies aim at addressing the considerable challenge in fighting poverty identified in Bulgaria. 

SFA:  With regard to rural development operations, with an order of the Minister for Agriculture and Food a working group was set up to 
coordinate the complementarity between RDP 2014—2020 and Operational Programme ‘Regions in Growth’ throughout the programming 
period of programme implementation in order not to allow double financing of expenditure. 

MTITC:  The  strategy  of  Operational  Programme  ‘Transport  and  Transport  Infrastructure’ 2014—2020  contributes  to  the  targets  of  the 
Europe 2020 Strategy and is consistent with the guidelines for the development of the European transport policy and the Trans-European 
transport  network,  with  the  national  policies,  as  well  as  with  the  conclusions  and  recommendations  defined  in  the  analysis  of  socio-
economic development and the strategy of the Partnership Agreement.  

Key documents related to the strategy of OPTTI 2014-2020 are as follows: 

- The  Strategy  ‘Europe  2020’  for  smart,  sustainable  and  inclusive  growth  ensures  that  the  objectives  and  priorities  of  OPTTI  are  in 
compliance with the EU targets to achieve economic, social and territorial cohesion. OPTTI contributes to all three pillars of the strategy 
with an emphasis on sustainable growth to promote a greener and more competitive economy with a more efficient use of resources, which, 
in relation to the transport sector, suggests modernisation and decarbonisation of the transport sector to achieve increased competitiveness 
through  a  combination  of  measures,  such  as  intelligent  traffic  management  through  modern  navigation  and  information  systems  for  the 
Black  Sea  and  the  Danube  River,  better  logistics,  pursuing  the  reduction  of  CO2 emissions  for  motor  vehicles,  aviation  and  maritime 
sectors, setting common standards and developing the necessary infrastructure, and to the accelerating of the implementation  of strategic 
projects with high added value for Europe, to address critical bottlenecks, in particular cross-border sections and intermodal nodes.  

- The National Reform Programme, a national document, which is updated annually in the implementation of Strategy ‘Europe 2020’. 

- The National Development Programme: Bulgaria 2020 (NDP BG2020) is the leading strategic and programming document detailing the 
objectives of the development policies of the country up to 2020.  

- White Paper ‘Roadmap to a Single European Transport Area’ includes measures to ensure growth in transport and mobility support. 

- The  Guidelines  for  the  development  of  the  Trans-European  Transport  Network  (Regulation  (EU)  No 1315/2013)  aim  to  contribute  to 
achieving  the  sustainable  mobility  of  people  and  goods  and  promoting  the  development  of  the  domestic  market  and  the  overall 
competitiveness of the European Community. 

- The National Spatial Development Concept for the period 2013—2025 includes a set of priorities, one of which is to develop the national 
transport infrastructure as a part of the Trans-European Transport Network.  

- The Strategy for the Development of the Transport System of the Republic of Bulgaria until 2020 defined the following objectives of the 

173 

 
 
national transport policy: 

Achieving economic efficiency  

Development of sustainable transport sector  

Improvement of the regional and social development and commitment  

The overall objective of OPTTI 2014—2020, like that of OPT 2007—2013, is ‘Development of a sustainable transport system’, which is in 
compliance with the thematic objectives specified above.  

The implementation of projects for developing the transport system, contributing to the effective connectivity of the transport network and 
to  removing  sections  with  insufficient  capacity  in  it,  reducing  congestion,  noise  and  pollution,  improving  safety,  promoting  the  use  of 
environmentally  friendly  modes  of  transport,  will  continue.  The  achievement  of  the  overall  objective  of  the  programme  and  hence  its 
contribution to TO 4 (Supporting the shifts towards a low-carbon economy in all sectors) and TO 7 (Promoting sustainable transport and 
removing  sections  with  insufficient  capacity  in  all  key  network  infrastructures)  will  contribute  to  the  realisation  of  the  concept  of 
competitive and sustainable transport system, as well as to achieving the desired sustainable mobility of people and goods, promoting the 
development  of  the  domestic  market  and  the  overall  competitiveness  of  the  European  Community,  territorial,  economic  and  social 
cohesion, public welfare, safety and security of European citizens, taking into account the environmental factors, such as climate  change, 
air pollution and protected areas.  

The  implementation  of  the  specific  measures  under  OPTTI  will  have  a  particular  impact  and  contribution  to  national  targets  on  
climate  change.  In  the  Third  National  Action  Plan  on  Climate  Change,  the  transport  sector  is  identified  as  one  of  the  major  sources  of 
greenhouse gas emissions. The reasons for this include the privatisation of road transport, the significant reduction of subsidies for railway 
transport  and  the  closure  of  railway  routes  leading  to  a  shift  in  the  transport  structure  from  rail  to  road.  Private  cars  have  the  most 
significant contribution to greenhouse gas emissions followed by heavy duty vehicles. In 2009 private cars and heavy duty vehicles were 
respectively responsible for 60 % and 21 % of the total emissions of the transport sector. Additionally, after the completion of Line 3 of the 
Sofia Metro in 2020, the road traffic is expected to decrease by 21,000 vehicles/day, which will result in reduction of traffic congestions 
and will create conditions for increasing the average speed of public transport along the central routes. 

The measures to be implemented under the Action Plan are focused on the following areas: 

- Reduction of transport emissions 

- Reduction of fuel consumption  

- Diversification of transport 

- Informing and training consumers. 

OPTTI  provides  funding  for  the  following  specific  measures  with  a  direct  effect  on  all  four  sectors,  contributing  to  the  achievement  of 
national targets on climate change:  

174 

 
 
  Under priority axis 1 – increasing the share of railway transport; 

  Under  priority  axis 2  –  modernisation  of  existing  road  infrastructure  to  ensure  optimum  speed  and  optimum  driving  modes  of 

automobile engines; 

  Under priority axis 3 – reduction of the relative share of trips with private motor vehicles through improvement and development of 
urban public transport; increasing the share of public electric transport and development and construction of intermodal terminals for 
combined transport. 

Seven  specific  objectives  have  been  identified  as  part  of  the  overall  objective  of  OPTTI 2014-2020  and  accordingly  the  investment 
priorities of TO 7 and TO 4. 

The  first  specific  objective  is  ‘Increasing  railway  traffic  of  passenger  and  freight  through  improving  the  quality  of  the  TEN-T railway 
infrastructure’.  

The second specific objective is ‘Removal of bottlenecks in the TEN-T road network’.  

The third specific objective is ‘Increased intermodal transport’.  

The fourth specific objective is ‘Increased use of metro’.  

The fifth specific objective is ‘Improved transport management through introduction of innovative systems’.  

The sixth specific objective is ‘Improved management of the railway network’.  

The  seventh  specific  objective  is  ‘Establishment  of  necessary  conditions  for  successful  completion  of  OPT 2007—2013  and 
implementation of OPTTI 2014—2020, strengthening the administrative capacity and public awareness’. 

The  strategy  of  OPTTI 2014—2020  ensures  continuity  and  logical  sequence  of  investments  in  programming  period  2007—2013, 
guaranteeing the completion of main directions in which investments are already made. The following priority axes have been identified in 
the programme:  

1. 

2. 

3. 

Development of railway infrastructure along the ‘core’ TEN-T 

Development of road infrastructure along the ‘core’ and ‘comprehensive’ TEN-T 

Improvement of intermodal transport services for passengers and freights and development of sustainable urban transport 

Innovations in management and services – establishment of modern infrastructure for traffic management and transport safety and 

4. 
security improvement 

5. 

Technical Assistance.  

In addition to the investments under OPTTI 2014—2020, it is planned to seek investments through public-private partnership, particularly 
for development of ports and airports. Investments for development of air, river and sea transport, planned for funding under OPTTI, are 
entirely directed towards the development of intelligent systems to improve services and management of air, river and sea transport. Also, 

175 

 
 
where applicable, funding from the Connecting Europe Facility (CEF) will be used. 

SFA:   With regard to rural development operations related to investments in fixed assets, for the programming period  2014—2020 it  is 
envisaged to apply only two approaches to assessing the reasonableness of costs: reference costs and comparing different (at  least three) 
offers. It is not envisaged to apply exception based on the amount of the costs requested for assistance. 

SFA:  With regard to the cost of financing approved after conducted public procurement procedures, for the purpose of RDP 2014—2020 it 
is envisaged to develop Guidelines for the implementation of the Public Procurement Act, which the contracting entities eligible under 
different sub-measures of RDP 2014—2020 will be obliged to implement. The Managing Authority will develop standard criteria for 
award by types of investment activities in relation to the implementation of the procedures under the Public Procurement Act. These 
criteria will be coordinated with competent institutions (IPA, AOP) and will be included as part of the Guidelines. Control will be exercised 
in four stages: ex-ante control, ex-post control, control at the stage of authorisation for contract implementation, and, last, control at the 
stage of on-the-spot verification. 

ME:  A system of indicators is developed under the programme. It is monitored at project level and is regularly updated.                  

Bulgarian National Audit Office: The Strategy for the Development of the National Audit Office during the period 2013—2017 sets the 
strengthening of the role of the institution for the proper management and absorption of EU funds as a priority objective. Appreciating the 
importance of Community funding for the socio-economic development and the implementation of the national strategic goals during the 
period until 2020, the National Audit Office decided to establish a separate structural unit for performance audit of resources from funds 
and programs of the European Union.  

In  the  context  of  the  approach,  adopted  at  EU  level,  to  target  interventions  in  the  programming  period  2014—2020  at  real  reforms  and 
results, the role of performance auditing for ensuring effective, efficient and economic use of EU structural and investment funds (ESIF) 
considerably  increases.  Appreciating  this,  in  May  2015  the  National  Audit  Office  decided  to  establish  a  separate  department  for 
performance audit of resources from the European Union.  

When  performance  audits  are  conducted,  the  international  standards  on  auditing  of  Supreme  Audit  Institutions  are  applied.  The 
methodology introduced in the Manual for the Implementation of the International Standards on Auditing is analogous to that used by the 
European Court of Auditors. 

All  final  reports  relating  to  the  audit  of  EU  funds  are  made  available  to  the  Chairperson  of  the  Committee  on  European  Affairs  and 
Oversight of the European Funds at the National Assembly, the Deputy Prime Minister for European  Funds  and Economic policies, the 
European Court of Auditors and the European Commission. 

MESc: UMIS 2020  

MTIT&C:  Only the evaluations of the programme, envisaged in the applicable regulation for the 2007—2013 period, are carried out under 
OP HRD. 

176 

 
 
 
Question 3.1.1. 

Yes. 

for 

Framework or a 
the 
system 
follow-up 
of 
ECA's 
recommendatio
ns  addressed  to 
Member  States 
in 
Court's 
and 
annual 
special  reports. 
Monitoring  and 
reporting 
on 
progress 
achieved 
towards 
to 
implementation 
Court's 
of 
recommendatio
ns 

Ministry  of  the  Economy:  The  following  procedure  for  follow-up  on  conducted  audits  and  recommendations  made  is  in  place  in  the 
Managing  Authority  of  Operational  Programme  ‘Development  of  the  Competitiveness  of  the  Bulgarian  Economy’  2007—2013  / 
Operational Programme ‘Innovations and Competitiveness’ 2014—2020: 

A draft audit report containing preliminary observations of the European Court of Auditors (ECA) is received by the Managing Authority 
after having been forwarded by the Bulgarian National Audit Office, which, pursuant to the Rules for the Structure and Organisation of its 
activity, interacts with foreign SAIs, including the European Court of Auditors, and also assists, where appropriate, for the preparation and 
conduct  of  the  audit  missions  of  the  European  Court  of  Auditors.  The  Bulgarian  National  Audit  Office  also  participates  in  the  Contact 
Committee  that  brings  together  the  heads  of  supreme  audit  institutions  (SAIs)  of  the  EU  Member  States  and  the  European  Court  of 
Auditors. Daily contact is maintained through liaison officers appointed by each institution; working groups, networks and task forces are 
set up to provide assistance for the development of common positions and practices. 

After the draft audit report forwarded by the Bulgarian National Audit Office is received by the MA, it is sent without delay to the heads of 
units,  the  competencies  of  which  include  the  recommendations,  so  that  they  can  prepare  opinions  on  the  findings.  All  comments  are 
summarised, submitted for approval to the Head of the MA, and an official response containing further information and arguments is sent 
to the Bulgarian National Audit Office. 

After the ECA provides a final report, it is received at the MA through the Bulgarian National Audit Office. This report is also sent to all 
responsible units at the MA so that they can take appropriate action according to their competencies. 

For  the  purposes  of  following  up  on  recommendations,  the  MA  keeps  a  register  of  audit  findings  and  recommendations  made  by  all 
auditing institutions. All final audit reports, findings and recommendations related thereto are registered in the Register of Audit Findings 
and Recommendations, and the status of recommendations, the authority that made them, the deadline for taking action, and the planned 
corrective actions are indicated. 

In addition, the implementation of recommendations contained in ECA reports is followed up by the Audit Authority — IA OSES, and by 
the Certifying Authority — National Fund Directorate at the Ministry of Finance. 

MTITC: The MA keeps a register of recommendations from audits and the actions taken, including the deadlines for implementation. The 
implementation of recommendations and their status are reported to the Certifying Authority.  

Simultaneously, each of the inspecting institutions at national level monitors the implementation of recommendations made:  

  The Audit Authority follows up on the implementation of recommendations made in the course of audits carried out by it and by 

the European Commission.  

  The Bulgarian National Audit Office follows up on the implementation of recommendations made by it.  

  The Internal Audit Unit follows up, on an annual basis, the status of recommendations made.  

177 

 
 
  The Certifying Authority follows up on the status of the recommendations made as a result of on-the-spot verifications. 

178 

 
 
 
 
 
Croatia 

Question 1.1.1 

Main  root  causes 
in  the  major  EU 
areas 
spending 
(common 
agricultural 
policy, 
regional 
and  urban  policy, 
employment, 
social  affairs  and 
inclusion)  for  the 
persisting 
risks 
and errors pointed 
out by the ECA. 

NB: In order to develop the replies, the following non-exhaustive list of examples for 
root causes of legality and regularity errors in EU expenditure may be considered 

Not 
relevant 

Relevant 
in some 
respect 

Relevant 
in most 
respect 

Fully 
relevant 

  number and complexity of rules and gold-plating 

 

incorrect transposition of applicable EU legislation into national laws 

x 

 

failure to observe the legal and procedural requirements stemming from 
EU and national legislation and rules 

  sufficient knowledge in applying procurement rules or State aid rules or 
other  applicable  EU  legislation  and  rules  (including  conditions  and 
eligibility  criteria  for  the  rural  development  measures,  simplified  cost 
options,  reasonableness  of  costs,  result-oriented  agri-environment 
payments) 

  complex eligibility rule 

  weaknesses  in  the  set  of  eligibility  rules  that  may  lead  to  potential  for 

circumventing them 

 

insufficient quality and up-date of the Land Parcel Identification System 
(LPIS) 

  mistakes in the aid applications 

  continued risks of misinterpretation of what is the eligible area for the 

basic payment scheme  

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

179 

x 

x 

x 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

inefficient sanction mechanism for non-compliance or low sanction rate 
for non-compliance 

  need  of  raising  awareness,  targeted  training,  and,  development  and 
delivery  of  detailed  methodological  support  and  guidance  for  national 
and regional authorities and final beneficiaries 

  need of more or better resources and administrative capacity building 

  need  of  an  improved  quality  of  key  aspects  of  the  supervisory  and 
control  systems  (better  design  and/or  performance  of  administrative 
checks  and  on-the-spot  controls  and/or  increase  of  the  effectiveness  of 
the  work  carried  out  by  management  verifications,  audit  authorities, 
paying agencies and certification bodies) 

  better use of the information necessary to detect and correct available in 
the supporting documents, as well as at the level of the beneficiary or a 
national/regional body 

  sufficiently robust action plans developed to address both the causes of 
errors  and  the  weaknesses  in  the  management  and  control  systems 
and/or deficiencies in the EU spending 

 

insufficient  introduction  of  changes  by  new  legal  and/or  regulatory 
and/or procedural frameworks likely to have a significant impact on the 
causes of errors 

  need  of  more  initiatives  for  ensuring  a  genuine  simplification  for 

beneficiaries and programmes' implementation 

  knowledge and experience sharing, and dissemination of good practices 
improving  widespread 

at  national  and/or  at  EU 

level  on 

180 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
weaknesses/deficiencies/errors 

  expected  results  from  actions  that  will  not  always  be  evident  in  short-

x 

term 

Question 1.1.2. 

In response to all three points: capacity building and better understanding of rules. 

lessons 
Main 
while 
learned 
addressing 
the 
risks  and  errors 
for 
EU 
the 
spending. 

Question 1.1.3. 

Not applicable given the limited experience. 

practices 
Good 
and  examples  of 
success  stories  in 
the 
of 
areas 
compliance  with 
EU  and  national 
eligibility 
rules, 
compliance  with 
EU  and  national 
public 
procurement 
legislation, 
and 
compliance  with 
State aid rules. 

Question 1.2.1. 

Additional checks and detailed and clear instructions. 

Further  measures 
to 
the 
enhance 
effectiveness of the 

181 

 
 
 
 
 
 
checks  carried  out 
declaring 
before 
certifying 
or 
expenditure  to  the 
Commission. 

Question 1.2.2. 

Improvement in procedures and re-checks. 

Further  measures 
the 
to 
enhance 
of 
effectiveness 
actions 
to  detect 
and  correct  errors 
concerning 
expenditure, which 
previously 
was 
or 
declared 
certified 
the 
to 
Commission. 

Question 1.3.1. 

Not applicable.  

Risk  analysis  and 
estimated  level  of 
error  in  the  major 
EU spending areas 
(common 
agricultural 
policy, 
regional 
and  urban  policy, 
employment, 
social  affairs  and 
inclusion). 

Question 1.3.2. 

Not applicable.  

Relationship 
between  the  basis 

182 

 
 
 
for  payment  and 
levels  of  error  in 
the  major  EU 
spending 
areas 
(common 
agricultural 
regional 
policy, 
and  urban  policy, 
employment, 
social  affairs  and 
inclusion). 

Question 2.1.1. 

Links  between  EU 
the 
in 
priorities 
context 
the 
of 
Europe 2020 
strategy,  including 
Horizon 2020,  and 
national priorities. 

Question 2.1.2. 

to 
synergies 

Measures 
pursue 
and 
complementarities 
ESI 
between 
Funds 
and 
national 
programmes . 

Question 2.2.1. 

Performance 
measurement 
system  to  link  EU 

183 

 
 
 
 
 
or 
to  EU 

measures, 
operations 
projects 
priorities/Europe 
2020 
and targets. 

objectives 

Question 2.2.2. 

Framework for the 
of 
management 
ESI 
in 
Funds 
order  to  achieve  a 
result-oriented 
system  and  impact 
of EU projects. 

Question 2.2.3. 

Yes – if " Yes" please describe them 

No – if  "No" please give reasons why not 

State 
Member 
actions  to  define 
or  improve  result 
indicators  at  EU 
project level. 

Question 2.2.4. 

Performance 
measurement 
system  to  monitor 
the 
achievement 
objectives  at  EU 
measure, 
operations 
or 
project  level  and 
the 
to  monitor 
output  and  result 
indicators  at  EU 

184 

 
 
 
 
 
measure, 
operations 
project level. 

or 

Question 3.1.1. 

No. 

Given its experience with ECA audits, the activities were coordinated by the Ministry of Regional Development and EU Funds.  

for 

Framework  or  a 
system 
the 
follow-up of ECA's 
recommendations 
to 
addressed 
Member  States  in 
annual 
Court's 
and 
special 
reports. 
and 
Monitoring 
reporting 
on 
progress  achieved 
to 
towards 
implementation  of 
Court's 
recommendations 

185 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Cyprus 

Question 1.1.1 

Main  root  causes 
in  the  major  EU 
areas 
spending 
(common 
agricultural 
policy, 
regional 
and  urban  policy, 
employment, 
social  affairs  and 
inclusion)  for  the 
persisting 
risks 
and errors pointed 
out by the ECA. 

NB:  In  order  to  develop  the  replies,  the  following  non-exhaustive  list  of 
examples  for  root  causes  of  legality  and  regularity  errors  in  EU  expenditure 
may be considered 

Not 
relevant 

Relevant 
in some 
respect 

Relevant 
in most 
respect 

Fully 
relevant 

  number and complexity of rules and gold-plating 

 

incorrect  transposition  of  applicable  EU  legislation  into  national 
laws 

 

failure to observe the legal and procedural requirements stemming 
from EU and national legislation and rules 

  sufficient  knowledge  in  applying  procurement  rules  or  State  aid 
rules  or  other  applicable  EU  legislation  and  rules  (including 
conditions  and  eligibility  criteria  for  the  rural  development 
measures,  simplified  cost  options,  reasonableness  of  costs,  result-
oriented agri-environment payments) 

  complex eligibility rule 

for 
cohesion 

for rural 
devloment 

for cohesion 
and rural 
development 

for cohesion 

for rural 
devloment 

for rural 
devloment 

for 
cohesion 

for 
cohesion 

for rural 
devloment 

186 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  weaknesses in the set of eligibility rules that may lead to potential 

for circumventing them 

 

insufficient  quality  and  up-date  of  the  Land  Parcel  Identification 
System (LPIS) 

Not applicable to cohesion policy 

  mistakes in the aid applications 

for cohesion 

for rural 
devloment 

for rural 
devloment 

  continued risks of misinterpretation of what is the eligible area for 

the basic payment scheme  

Not applicable to cohesion policy 

 

inefficient sanction mechanism for non-compliance or low sanction 
rate for non-compliance 

for rural 
devloment 

for 
cohesion 

for 
cohesion 
and rural 
devloment 

for rural 
devloment 

  need of raising awareness, targeted training, and, development and 
delivery  of  detailed  methodological  support  and  guidance  for 
national and regional authorities and final beneficiaries 

for rural 
devloment 

for 
cohesion 

  need  of  more  or  better  resources  and  administrative  capacity 

building 

for rural 

for 

187 

 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
systems 

(better  design 

  need  of an improved quality of key aspects of the supervisory and 
control 
of 
administrative  checks  and  on-the-spot  controls  and/or  increase  of 
the  effectiveness  of 
the  work  carried  out  by  management 
verifications,  audit  authorities,  paying  agencies  and  certification 
bodies) 

performance 

and/or 

  better  use  of  the  information  necessary  to  detect  and  correct 
available in the supporting documents, as well as at the level of the 
beneficiary or a national/regional body 

  sufficiently  robust  action  plans  developed  to  address  both  the 
causes of errors and the weaknesses in the management and control 
systems and/or deficiencies in the EU spending 

 

insufficient introduction of changes by new legal and/or regulatory 
and/or  procedural  frameworks  likely  to  have  a  significant  impact 
on the causes of errors 

devloment 

cohesion 

for rural 
devloment 

for 
cohesion 

for rural 
devloment 

for 
cohesion 

for rural 
devloment 

for 
cohesion 

for rural 
devloment 
and 
cohesion 

  need  of  more  initiatives  for  ensuring  a  genuine  simplification  for 

beneficiaries and programmes' implementation 

  knowledge  and  experience  sharing,  and  dissemination  of  good 
practices at national and/or at EU level on improving widespread 
weaknesses/deficiencies/errors 

for 
cohesion 

for rural 
devloment 

for rural 
devloment 

for 
cohesion 

188 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
  expected  results  from  actions  that  will  not  always  be  evident  in 

short-term 

for cohesion 

for rural 
devloment 

Question 1.1.2. 

lessons 
Main 
while 
learned 
addressing 
the 
risks  and  errors 
for 
EU 
the 
spending. 

For rural development: The main lesson learned from our experience is that the more detailed but simple the  laws and procedures, the 
more efficiently the various measures are applied and errors minimised. 

For cohesion: With regard to the eligibility of expenditure, it was found that there was a greater concentration of resources on checking 
small amounts, while large amounts with greater risk were not given a risk assessment or specially targeted. In the FP 2014-2020 efforts 
were more targeted as regards checks and an attempt to use simplified cost options in order to focus on the results of the operations. 

On the subject of public procurement rules, error evaluation revealed that most of the findings related to the performance rather than to 
the awarding of contracts; therefore in the FP 2014-2020 checks were limited during the award stage to amounts over the Community 
thresholds, and checks were increased while contracts were being carried out, especially when there were changes to the contract terms. 

Looking at state aid, weaknesses were found as regards maintaining investment, therefore for the FP 2014-2020 on-the-spot checks were 
intensified on projects after their completion. 

Question 1.1.3. 

Good 
practices 
and  examples  of 
success  stories  in 
the 
of 
areas 
compliance  with 
EU  and  national 
rules, 
eligibility 
compliance  with 
EU  and  national 
public 
procurement 
legislation, 
and 
compliance  with 
State aid rules. 

For  rural  development:  With  regard  to  investment  measure  121  of  the  2007-2013  Programming  Period,  application  of  ceilings  for 
eligible costs led to fewer errors. Furthermore, the 100 % rate for on-the-spot checks which we as a Member State apply to investment 
measures leads to a further reduction in errors and minimises the risk to the European funds. 

For cohesion: Looking at the eligibility of expenditure, a Central  Agency for Administrative Checks on Expenditure has been  set  up, 
which will check the eligibility of expenditure of all public works contracts. Project expenditure will now be checked on a sample of 
certain cases with a large volume of expenditure per beneficiary payment request. 

Looking  at  compliance  with  the  rules  on  public  procurement  in  Cyprus,  the  Public  Procurement  Directorate  at  the  Treasury  of  the 
Republic  is  used  as  the  certification  body  for  the  legality  of  tender  documents,  notice  to  tender  and  award  of  co-financed  contracts 
(where they are above EU thresholds). Furthermore the e-procurement system, which includes controls, is in mandatory use by all the 
state contracting authorities. 

Under  the  Funds  Management  and  Control  System,  overall  checking  of  projects  is  done  on  the  spot  and  sampling  is  limited  only  to 
project-level activities.  

Looking  at  state  aid,  all  support  schemes  are  checked  centrally  by  the  Managing  Authority,  which  makes  sure  that  the  necessary 
procedures and safeguards are included before they are launched. 

Question 1.2.1. 

For  rural  development:  Various  cross-checks  with  other  databases,  100  %  checks  on  investment  measures,  cross-checks  with  other 
services, etc.  

189 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Further  measures 
to 
the 
enhance 
effectiveness of the 
checks  carried  out 
declaring 
before 
or 
certifying 
expenditure  to  the 
Commission. 

For  cohesion:  The  Central  Agency  for  Administrative  Checks  on  Expenditure  on  public  procurement  contracts  will  enhance  the 
effectiveness of the checks before declaration of expenditure to the EU, as it will apply a system of risk assessment which will make it 
possible  to  focus  checks  on  risky  categories  of  expenditure.  Centralising  the  verification  work  will  also  achieve  economies  of  scale, 
better knowledge transfer, better monitoring and staff training and ensure a focus on targeted measures after risk assessment. Emphasis 
will also be placed on simplifying procedures and developing simplified cost methods. 

In  parallel  with  the  above structure  the  Treasury  has  established  a  Framework  Agreement  which  can  be  used  by  all  the  agencies  that 
manage  co  financed  support  schemes.  Taking  part  in  the  Agreement  are  10  audit  firms  which  can  support  the  project  management 
agencies in checking applications for support submitted by beneficiaries. 

For  the  other  intermediaries  involved  in  the  management  of  the  funds,  training  of  the  officers  responsible  will  be  intensified,  both  in 
procedures and in systems, and emphasis will be placed on sound financial management of the funds. 

Question 1.2.2. 

Further  measures 
the 
to 
enhance 
of 
effectiveness 
actions 
to  detect 
and  correct  errors 
concerning 
expenditure, which 
previously 
was 
or 
declared 
certified 
the 
to 
Commission. 

For  rural  development:  Stepping  up  of  ex  post  controls  with  larger  samples  than  those  provided  for  in  the  regulations.  Other 
investigations after any complaints. Checks with meaningful data that come after payment of the aid and lead to corrective payments. 

For cohesion: For the FP 2014-2020, in view of the obligation to prepare annual accounts, management statements and reports relating to 
the identified weaknesses and findings following checks, and in view of the written assignment of work to intermediate agencies through 
delegation  agreements,  the  Managing  Authority  has  adopted  a  more  rigorous  system  to  monitor  the  adequacy  of  the  intermediate 
agencies by means of random on-the-spot checks at the agencies that manage the programmes and projects. The system of checks and 
inspections has been built around an annual cycle of reporting to the EU in such a way that even after the certification of expenditure, the 
intermediate  agencies  continue  on-site  project  checks.  Reporting  timetables  have  been  set  whereby  the  intermediate  bodies  complete 
their  checks  and  certify  the  performance  of  the  work  assigned  to  them,  having  corrected  any  errors  detected  after  the  statement  of 
expenditure to the EU, which are taken into account by the Managing Authority when drawing up the management statement. In addition 
all  checks,  findings  and  financial  corrections  are  entered  in  the  Information  System  by  the  competent  authorities  and  automatically 
removed (or taken into account) both when drawing up payment requests to the EU and when preparing the annual financial statements. 

Question 1.3.1. 

For rural development: Spending is restricted on the basis of rights. 

Risk  analysis  and 
estimated  level  of 
error  in  the  major 
EU spending areas 
(common 
agricultural 
regional 
policy, 
and  urban  policy, 
employment, 

For cohesion: A sampling methodology has been developed to carry out sample on-the-spot checks and sample checks on expenditure 
included in a beneficiary’s request for reimbursement in accordance with the European Commission’s guidelines, taking into account the 
assessment  of  the  identified  risks  and  implementing  effective,  preventive  and  proportionate  measures  to  combat  fraud.  The  sampling 
methodology, where applied, will be reviewed annually.  

The risk factors assessed to determine the percentage of expenditure to be verified are: 

• 

• 

the type of beneficiary  

the type of project  

190 

 
 
social  affairs  and 
inclusion). 

• 

• 

the categories of expenditure included in the population to be verified,  

the results (% irregular expenditure) of prior administrative checks on the project 

The  above  are  backed  up  and  contributed  to  also  by  the  risk  assessment  procedure  carried  out  by  a  Risk  Assessment  Team  in  the 
Managing Authority. 

Question 1.3.2. 

Yes (for rural development and cohesion). 

Relationship 
between  the  basis 
for  payment  and 
levels  of  error  in 
the  major  EU 
spending 
areas 
(common 
agricultural 
policy, 
regional 
and  urban  policy, 
employment, 
social  affairs  and 
inclusion). 

Question 2.1.1. 

Links  between  EU 
the 
in 
priorities 
context 
the 
of 
Europe 2020 
strategy,  including 
Horizon 2020,  and 
national priorities. 

For rural development: Each main spending area has its own level of complexity, which has relevance to the levels of error. 

For cohesion: There is absolutely no correlation between the basis for payment and levels of error, but we agree that the use of simplified 
cost  options can  reduce  the  levels  of  error.  For  example,  in  employment  policy  projects,  where  the  total  value  of  the  projects  is  very 
small and the costs even lower, cost reimbursement based on payment documents adds no value. A check may be done on compliance 
with  certain  conditions  of  employment  and,  for  example,  a  flat-rate  payment  may  be  made  to  the  Beneficiary  (e.g.  support  schemes 
where the project is the employment of an unemployed person for a predetermined period and the only cost of the project is the cost of 
the unemployed person). Of course on the other hand, through the reimbursement of actual expenditure a large number of  cases were 
detected where there was an attempt to defraud the public purse, which would not have been detected if simplified cost options had been 
used. 

For  rural  development:  The  EU  priorities  are  to  a  large  extent  adapted  to  the  national  priorities  and  are  described  in  the  Partnership 
Agreement and in the Rural Development Programme 2014-2020. 

For  cohesion:  The  Operational  Programmes  financed  by  the  ESI  Funds  are  geared  to  contribute  to  achieving  both  the  national 
development priorities and the objectives of the Europe 2020 strategy for smart, sustainable and inclusive growth The strategic objective 
of  the  Partnership  Agreement  is  ‘the  restructuring  of  the  Cypriot  economy,  maintaining  and  creating  new  jobs  and  ensuring  social 
cohesion.’  To  achieve  this  goal,  11  thematic  objectives  have  been  selected,  each  of  which  contributes  directly  or  indirectly  to  the 
objectives of the National Reform Programme for the Europe 2020 strategy. 

With particular regard to the research and innovation sector, the ESI Funds co-finance a large number of measures under the National 
Smart  Specialisation  Strategy.  This  Strategy  includes  measures  that  contribute  to  achieving  synergies  between  national  research  and 
innovation programmes and the EU ‘Horizon 2020’ programme. In this regard, the ERDF will finance the ‘Horizon 2020 - 2nd chance’ 
national  programme,  involving  Cypriot  proposals  of  very  high  quality,  which  were  submitted  and  given  a  high  score  in  the  ‘Horizon 
2020’ programme but did not secure funding because the budget was exhausted.  

The Horizon 2020 actions included in this programme are: ‘ERC Starting Grant’, ‘ERC-Consolidator Grant’, ‘Marie Sklodοwska Curie 

191 

 
 
 
 
Actions’ - Individual Fellowships (IFs)/ Standard European Fellowships (EFs) and ‘SME Instrument’. 

For rural development: Synergies are achieved through close cooperation of all the departments concerned under the coordination of the 
Directorate-General  for  European  Programmes,  Coordination  and Development.  Better  coordination  and maximum  possible  synergies 
between all the Funds is achieved mainly through the work of the Planning and Strategic Monitoring Steering Committee. 

For cohesion: Synergies and complementarities between the ESI Funds and the national programs are achieved because all actions that 
receive funding, either from the ESI Funds or from national resources are part of sectoral national strategies (e.g. digital strategy, waste 
management strategy, strategy for adaptation to climate change, etc.). The implementation of each of the sectoral strategies in Cyprus is 
achieved  by  carrying  out  various  measures,  some  of  which  are  co-financed  by  the  ESI  Funds,  while  the  rest  will  be  financed  from 
national resources. 

For  rural  development:  Monitoring  and  evaluation  of  the  Common  Agricultural  Policy  is  governed  by  the  Common  Monitoring  and 
Evaluation Framework drawn up by the European Commission. 

For cohesion: The system of indicators is already applied for monitoring projects financed by the ESI Funds with respect to the Cohesion 
Policy. That is, every project included must include output and outcome indicators at project level. Progress in achieving the indicators is 
then assessed during project implementation through project monitoring bulletins preparing automatically via the Information System. 
Progress of the indicators is checked by the Intermediate Bodies during their on-the-spot verification visits to the projects. 

Question 2.1.2. 

to 
synergies 

Measures 
pursue 
and 
complementarities 
ESI 
between 
Funds 
and 
national 
programmes . 

Question 2.2.1. 

Performance 
measurement 
system  to  link  EU 
measures, 
operations 
projects 
priorities/Europe 
2020 
and targets. 

or 
to  EU 

objectives 

Question 2.2.2. 

Framework for the 
of 
management 
ESI 
in 
Funds 
order  to  achieve  a 
result-oriented 
system  and  impact 
of EU projects. 

For  rural  development:  Monitoring  and  evaluation  of  the  Common  Agricultural  Policy  is  governed  by  the  Common  Monitoring  and 
Evaluation Framework drawn up by the European Commission. 

For cohesion: The project monitoring indicators are specified at least in the call issued by the Intermediary Bodies. The calls are issued 
for each  investment  priority. All the  monitoring  indicators of the  Operational  Programme  as agreed  with the EU on approval  of each 
programme have been recorded in the system and have also been linked to key policies and investment priorities. When issuing a call for 
an investment priority, it is compulsory to use at least the programme indicators, and the projects included in the call must monitor at 
least the progress of these indicators in addition to any additional project monitoring indicators. 

Question 2.2.3. 

Yes (for rural development and cohesion). 

Member 

State 

For  rural  development:  The  Managing  Authority  intends  to  launch  a  call  for  tender  for  parallel  assessment  of  the  RDP  2014-2020  to 

192 

 
 
 
actions  to  define 
or  improve  result 
indicators  at  EU 
project level. 

Question 2.2.4. 

Performance 
measurement 
system  to  monitor 
achievement 
the 
objectives  at  EU 
measure, 
operations 
or 
project  level  and 
to  monitor 
the 
output  and  result 
indicators  at  EU 
measure, 
operations 
project level. 

or 

Question 3.1.1. 

for 

Framework  or  a 
system 
the 
follow-up of ECA's 
recommendations 
addressed 
to 
Member  States  in 
annual 
Court's 
and 
special 
reports. 
and 
Monitoring 
on 
reporting 
progress  achieved 
towards 
to 
implementation  of 

improve fulfilment of the obligations of the Common Monitoring and Evaluation Framework.  

For  cohesion:  The  result  indicators  are  specified  in  the  Operational  Programmes  and  their  progress  is  monitored  via  the  Information 
System. 

For  rural  development:  Monitoring  and  evaluation  of  the  Common  Agricultural  Policy  is  governed  by  the  Common  Monitoring  and 
Evaluation Framework drawn up by the European Commission. 

Yes (for rural development and cohesion) – For rural development: There is a procedure for follow-up of the recommendations arising 
from all audits, including those by the Court of Auditors. 

For  cohesion:  The  reports  and  findings  of  all  the  audit  bodies  (whether  national  or  EU,  including  the  ECA)  until  their  closure  and 
implementation are monitored by the Managing Authority with the help of a team of accountants from the Treasury, which supports the 
Managing  Authority  in  the  financial  management  and  control  of  Co-funded  Programmes.  This  team  keeps  a  central  database  in  the 
Information System of the Funds to record all the findings and monitor implementation of the recommendations. Corrective measures 
are  taken  where  they  are  implemented  at  the  level  of  procedures,  financial  corrections  are  imposed  and  the  findings  are  assessed  in 
relation to the operation of the Management and Control System (e.g. changes to procedures, circulars, training, etc. are put forward).  

193 

 
 
 
Court's 
recommendations 

194 

 
 
 
 
 
Czech Republic 

Question 1.1.1 

Main  root  causes 
in  the  major  EU 
areas 
spending 
(common 
agricultural 
policy, 
regional 
and  urban  policy, 
employment, 
social  affairs  and 
inclusion)  for  the 
persisting 
risks 
and errors pointed 
out by the ECA. 

Eligibility of expenditure, eligibility rules in addition to the rules of the other areas (in particular, public procurement, etc.) Failure to 
comply with the legal and procedural requirements normally follows from the excessive amount of law to be applied and the complexity 
thereof. Another issue is the combination of (incompatible) rules at EU and national rules. 

Procurement is problematic particularly because of the complexity of the rules.  For example, regarding smaller beneficiaries that are not 
contracting authorities and do not therefore experience difficulty with procurement,  it is complicated under the law to award contracts 
above the threshold of CZK 2 million. Errors are, of course, made, even by the public authorities, most often when setting assessment 
criteria  and  evaluating  tenders  –  where  the  biggest  problem  is  largely  subjective  perception,  which  often  renders  the  evaluation 
impossible  to  conduct  –  and  when  setting  qualification  requirements,  where  the  problem  occurs  of  having  to  uphold  the  principle  of 
proportionality.  In the future, the situation may be further complicated by the adoption of new Act No. 134/2016 on public procurement, 
which transposed the European directives on public procurement into Czech law.  The law provides for completely new procedures for 
which  there  is  no  decision-making  or  interpretative  practice.    This  often  concerns  procedures  laid  down  at  European  Union  level,  in 
which the meaning of a provision is not entirely clear.  In practice, until the new procedures have been bedded in, there may be a higher 
incidence  of  errors.    There  may  also  be  additional  changes  to  the  interpretation  of  certain  provisions  and  to  penalties  being  imposed 
again, which at the time of the procedure were not deemed to be an error. This is also true of Act No 137/2006 on public procurement. 

The main  causes of the errors identified by the ECA are failure on the part of the beneficiary to comply with the requirements under 
national law (and the deliberate circumvention of those rules) which control systems are not always able to detect, in particular because 
of the limited possibilities of checks (e.g. checks on the size of enterprises); the balance of the funds provided still needs to be taken into 
account and the checks carried out are time-consuming. 

NB: In order to develop the replies, the following non-exhaustive list of examples for 
root causes of legality and regularity errors in EU expenditure may be considered 

Not 
relevant 

Relevant 
in some 
respect 

Relevant 
in most 
respect 

Fully 
relevant 

  number and complexity of rules and gold-plating 

The  complexity  and  number  of  rules  and  regulations  at  European  and 
national  level  is  one  of  the  main  causes  of  error  rates  in  the 
implementation of programmes and individual projects.  The situation is 
further  complicated  by  the  different  interpretative  practice  of  different 
control and audit authorities. 

 

incorrect transposition of applicable EU legislation into national laws 

195 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

failure to observe the legal and procedural requirements stemming from 
EU and national legislation and rules 

Follow-up  to  question  No.  1  —  non-compliance  with  the  legal  and 
procedural requirements usually stems from an excessive amount of law 
to  be  applied  and  the  complexity  of  that  law.  Another  issue  is  the 
combination of (incompatible) rules at EU and national level.   

  sufficient knowledge in applying procurement rules or State aid rules or 
other  applicable  EU  legislation  and  rules  (including  conditions  and 
eligibility  criteria  for  the  rural  development  measures,  simplified  cost 
options,  reasonableness  of  costs,  result-oriented  agri-environment 
payments) 

This follows on from the previous questions. Knowledge of the rules is 
a  vital  prerequisite  for  their  correct  application  and  consequently 
eligibility of expenditure and, in general, the proper implementation of 
the programmes. A further problem is the excessive complexity of the 
rules, the large number thereof and their variety and the fact that their 
interpretation in practice changes over time. For example, in the area of 
public procurement, which is one of the areas most affected by errors, 
inconsistent  interpretations  of  the  rules  by  the  different  control  and 
audit  authorities  in  the  different  assessments  of  the  same  case  by  the 
ECA,  on  the  one  hand,  and  the  MA  or  the  Competition  Authority 
(ÚOHS),  on  the  other.  State  aid  provision  is  also  problematic,  both  in 
terms of the many different rules and their inconsistency with the ESIF 
rules and the lack of legal certainty (only the ECJ can rule on whether it 
is a matter of State aid).  

In order to reduce errors by beneficiaries, training courses and seminars 
are  held  (for  the  specialists  in  the  field  and  general  public).  At  MA 
level, the interpretation of the rules and the sharing of experience on the 
ground  is  unified.  The  Ministry  of  Regional  Development’s  national 
coordination  authority  is  working  on  launching  a  database  of  the 
findings  of  audit  and  control  bodies,  and  judicial  and  administrative 
decisions,  which  could  also  contribute  to  alignment  at  national  level. 
However, not all institutions are required to abide by the interpretation 
of other institutions (e.g. the court is not bound by the interpretation of 

196 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
the  ÚOHS  or  AA,  and  the  Commission  is  not  bound  by  the 
interpretation of national institutions, etc. — the problem is therefore a 
conflict  between  the  European  and  national  laws  and  in  the  system  in 
general).  

  complex eligibility rule 

Public  procurement  rules  are  laid  down  as  generally  as  possible  at 
European  level.  However,  the  situation  is  complicated  by  the  various 
funds, in the case of the State aid scheme, etc. At national level this is a 
complex matter due to the need to harmonise the rules with the national 
legislative provisions. 

One  very  effective  measure  to  reduce  the  error  rate  relating  to  the 
eligibility rules (and to reduce the administrative burden involved  with 
the declaration of expenditure) is the use of simplified cost options.  

  weaknesses  in  the  set  of  eligibility  rules  that  may  lead  to  potential  for 

circumventing them 

Some  facts  are  detailed  in  a  sworn  declaration  because,  for  objective 
reasons, verifying the actual state of play would entail a greater financial 
and administrative burden both on the applicant/beneficiary and the MA. 
It  is  therefore  necessary,  when  setting  eligibility  rules,  to  take  into 
account the principle of proportionality and the 3-E principles. 

At the same time, it is clear that, for example, the economy principle is 
not adequately defined, even in national law. 

 

insufficient quality and up-date of the Land Parcel Identification System 
(LPIS) 

  mistakes in the aid applications 

Errors  in  aid  applications  detected  in  the  process  of  evaluation  and 
selection of projects is not perceived as a critical source of errors.  

  continued risks of misinterpretation of what is the eligible area for the 

basic payment scheme  

197 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

inefficient sanction mechanism for non-compliance or low sanction rate 
for non-compliance 

The  principle  of  proportionality  is  always  upheld  when  penalties  are 
imposed  (penalties  must  be  proportionate  to  the  severity  of  the 
misconduct),  which  stems  from  both  the  law  and  the  decision-making 
practice of the courts. 

  need  of  raising  awareness,  targeted  training,  and,  development  and 
delivery  of  detailed  methodological  support  and  guidance  for  national 
and regional authorities and final beneficiaries 

As  regards  the  Commission’s  support  for  the  Czech  Republic, 
methodological  support  from  the  Commission  is  very  welcome,  but 
must  be  coherent  throughout  the  programming  period  and  without  any 
retroactive  application  of  financial  instruments  (cf.  examples  where 
rules  have  been  revised  at  the  mid-term  stage  of  the  programming 
period). We warmly welcome peer-to-peer activity. 

National-level  training  is  carried  out  for  those  involved  in  the 
implementation  structure  (at  MA  and  National  Coordination  Authority 
level)  and  workshops  are  held  for  applicants  and  beneficiaries 
Guidelines  for  applicants  and  beneficiaries  are  regularly  published  and 
updated by the MAs. 

  need of more or better resources and administrative capacity building 

Sufficient  administrative  capacity  and  expertise  of  staff  performing 
expenditure  checks  prior  to    submission  to  the  Commission  are  key  to 
the  successful  implementation  of  the  programmes.  Building  sufficient 
high-quality  administrative  capacity,  however,  also  complicated  the 
adoption  of  the  Civil  Service  Act,  which  contains  a  very  rigid  and 
complex  administrative  procedure  and  this  does  not  make  the  civil 
service  very  attractive  to  jobseekers.  A  draft  amendment  to  the  Civil 
Service  Act  is  currently  in  the  legislative  process,  which  should  help 

198 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
improve the situation. 

  need  of  an  improved  quality  of  key  aspects  of  the  supervisory  and 
control  systems  (better  design  and/or  performance  of  administrative 
checks  and  on-the-spot  controls  and/or  increase  of  the  effectiveness  of 
the  work  carried  out  by  management  verifications,  audit  authorities, 
paying agencies and certification bodies) 

The  problems  are  caused  by  the  various  divergent  interpretative 
practices  of  the  control  and  audit  authorities  (the  MA  often  does  not 
accept the findings of the AA, the EC or the Supreme Audit Office; the 
findings  of  the  AA  and  the  Commission  are,  moreover,  particularly 
difficult  to  enforce  by  the  tax  authorities),  and  the  fragmentation  of 
checks  carried  out  at  several  levels  (projects  checked  by  the  MA,  then 
the  AA,  ECA,  SAO,  etc.)  —  a  project  may  be  checked  several  times, 
each  time  with  different  conclusions,  which  reduces  the  transparency 
and  predictability  of  the  system.    In  verification  and  audit  activities, 
emphasis is also placed on checking the correctness of procedures, often 
by  means  of  many  documents,  but  the  results  of  the  project  are  not 
followed up. Proportionality is often not taken into account. 

  better use of the information necessary to detect and correct available in 
the supporting documents, as well as at the level of the beneficiary or a 
national/regional body 

  sufficiently robust action plans developed to address both the causes of 
errors  and  the  weaknesses  in  the  management  and  control  systems 
and/or deficiencies in the EU spending 

 

insufficient  introduction  of  changes  by  new  legal  and/or  regulatory 
and/or procedural frameworks likely to have a significant impact on the 
causes of errors 

  need  of  more  initiatives  for  ensuring  a  genuine  simplification  for 

beneficiaries and programmes' implementation 

The  issue  here  is  not  so  much  the  number  of  initiatives,  but  rather 
achieving  genuine  simplification.  Unfortunately,  experience  shows  that 

199 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
a  number  of  measures  originally  purporting  to  simplify  matters  in  fact 
lead  to  an  increase  in  the  administrative  burden.  Demonstrable 
simplification  is  achieved  primarily  by  applying  a  simpler  method  for 
reporting expenditure. 

  knowledge and experience sharing, and dissemination of good practices 
improving  widespread 

level  on 

at  national  and/or  at  EU 
weaknesses/deficiencies/errors 

The  sharing  of  experience  (including  between  Member  States)  could 
help reduce the error rate in the implementation structure.  A database 
of  the  most  common  findings  is  being  developed  at  national  level  in 
order  to  disseminate  information  about  the  areas  in  which  errors  are 
most commonly found and to minimise their occurrence in the future. A 
similar instrument should be developed at EU level. 

Making  the  findings  of  other  inspection  authorities  available  is  also 
highly beneficial. To prevent errors, it is necessary, however, to provide 
that information in a timely manner, without delays.     

  expected  results  from  actions  that  will  not  always  be  evident  in  short-

term 

Question 1.1.2. 

lessons 
Main 
while 
learned 
addressing 
the 
risks  and  errors 
for 
EU 
the 
spending. 

In  order  to  lay  down  eligibility  rules  experience  of  previous  programming  periods  has  been  harnessed  by  the  MAs.    For  the  selected 
programmes (in particular the OP financed by the ESF) there has recently been a marked increase in the use of indirect costs or unit costs 
in order to reduce the administrative burden involved with the declaration of expenditure.  

Specific actions taken: 

In the area of public procurement the main changes, following the experience from the 07-13 period, are the following measures: 

  A  Public  Procurement  Act  has  been  adopted  (https://www.portal-vz.cz/cs/Jak-na-zadavani-verejnych-zakazek/Legislativa-a-

Judikatura/Legislativa/Narodni-legislativa/Aktualni-zneni-zakona-o-verejnych-zakazkach); 

 

 

in the context of a uniform methodological environment public procurement rules are centrally and uniformly laid down in the 
methodological guidelines for the 2014-2020 programming period;  

 stepping up training for applicants and beneficiaries and workers involved in the implementation structure in the area of public 
procurement; 

200 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 

 preparing the database of audit findings;  

 uniform checklists drawn up for monitoring public procurement 

General information: 

 

 

 

 errors must be detected before expenditure is approved; ideally, when they can still be rectified (ex-ante controls); 

 eligibility rules at EU level should, as far possible, be compliant with national and international rules; 

 most  importantly,  national/international  law  on  public  procurement  (and  related  generally  binding  legislation)  should  comply 
with EU law; 

 

 more extensive use of the CEN database to check the reasonableness of expenditure or similar tools. 

Specific actions taken:  

 

 

 

 The National Coordination Authority issued Methodological Recommendations for State aid, drawn up in conjunction with the 
ÚOHS,  which  advises  entities  to  set  up  an  implementation  structure  for  best  practices  in  the  administration  of  State  aid, 
highlighting best practice in this field and warning of areas at risk.  

 Greater  use  of  block  exemptions,  pursuant  to  Regulation  (EC)  No  651/2014  (GBER),  as  this  is  a  more  transparent  process 
without the need for the notification process.  

 The National Coordination Authority provides advice for aid providers, e.g. harnessing experience in the area of State aid from 
other Member States.  

Based  on  the  experience  of  the  last  programming  period  there  was  more  widespread  use  of  simplified  reporting  methods,  along  with 
efforts at national level to simplify the rules on eligibility of expenditure, whilst complying with all of the conditions laid down by the 
Commission. Some MAs (e.g. ROP SW) in the OP 2007-2013 used ‘contentious expenditure’, which significantly sped up disbursement 
to beneficiaries as regards resolving the eligibility of expenditure. 

Monitoring of selected public procurement in the award procedure before the signature of the contract, thereby lowering the error rate in 
this area. 

Further training and seminars for applicants and beneficiaries and/or setting uniform rules. 

In  terms  of  best  practice  in  the  field  of  State  aid  cooperation  has  been  set  up  with  the  ÚOHS.  We  also  submit  questions  to  DG 
Competition and DG REGIO and we try to transfer experience and good practice between  the Member States where we compare our 
State  aid  experiences.  We  regularly  meet  with  the  ÚOHS  in  the  context  of  working  groups  and  cooperation  is  also  established  in  the 
development of guidance documents and recommendations for State aid.  For example, in the context of the CAP various channels of 
communication with the beneficiaries proved useful, including cooperation with local agricultural organisations. 

201 

Question 1.1.3. 

Good 
practices 
and  examples  of 
success  stories  in 
the 
of 
areas 
compliance  with 
EU  and  national 
rules, 
eligibility 
compliance  with 
EU  and  national 
public 
procurement 
legislation, 
and 
compliance  with 

 
 
State aid rules. 

Question 1.2.1. 

Further  measures 
the 
enhance 
to 
effectiveness of the 
checks  carried  out 
before 
declaring 
certifying 
or 
expenditure  to  the 
Commission. 

Question 1.2.2. 

Further  measures 
the 
to 
enhance 
of 
effectiveness 
actions 
to  detect 
and  correct  errors 
concerning 
expenditure, which 
previously 
was 
or 
declared 
certified 
the 
to 
Commission. 

The  introduction  of  ex-ante  checks  on  contracts,  evaluation  of  the  effectiveness  of  the  checks  and  other  refinements  arising  from  the 
experience of 2007-2013. For example, data from the Copernicus satellite (SENTINEL 1 and 2) are used as part of the CAP checks.  In 
2017 such data should be used on a pilot basis. We expect to derive benefit from the efficiency gains (new risk factors, the possibility of 
selecting applicants for online checks in the event of infringements) in terms of identifying more cases of misconduct before payment, 
which will increase the efficiency of on-the-spot checks. 

Expenditure affected by irregularities is deducted immediately – i.e. even before enforcement – from the statement of expenditure and 
the  payment  request  sent  to  the  Commission  by  the  PCAs  is  reduced  by  that  amount.    The  only  exceptions  are  unenforceable  (or 
potentially unenforceable) irregularities. 

When samples for checks are selected randomly and based on risk analysis this is more often than not followed by carefully targeted 
subsequent checks. The selection of such checks is based on knowledge acquired from previous administration of specific requests and 
from the administration of the relevant measures. The monitoring of these selected projects focuses on the economy, efficiency and 
effectiveness of the projects. 

Question 1.3.1. 

Steps have been taken to reduce the incidence of errors, see answers 1.2.1 and 1.2.2.  The MA and the PCA in the context of forecasts of 

202 

 
 
 
 
Risk  analysis  and 
estimated  level  of 
error  in  the  major 
EU spending areas 
(common 
agricultural 
regional 
policy, 
and  urban  policy, 
employment, 
social  affairs  and 
inclusion). 

Question 1.3.2. 

Relationship 
between  the  basis 
for  payment  and 
levels  of  error  in 
the  major  EU 
spending 
areas 
(common 
agricultural 
regional 
policy, 
and  urban  policy, 
employment, 
social  affairs  and 
inclusion). 

Question 2.1.1. 

Links  between  EU 
the 
in 
priorities 
context 
the 
of 
Europe 2020 
strategy,  including 
Horizon 2020,  and 
national priorities. 

the estimated extent of expenditure affected by irregularities. 

Approaches  vary  by  region,  and  in  the  context  of  the  Common  Agricultural  Policy  there  is  a  perceived  link  between  the  basis  for 
payment and levels of error, hence the checks have been adapted. However, for example, regarding projects obtaining support from the 
ESF, in particular to promote employment, checks are performed following the same procedures, irrespective of the size of the budget of 
the project. For major projects, the checks are more frequent (up to 100 % more). 

The  implementation  of  the  Europa  2020  strategy  through  the  ESI  Funds  is  established  in  the  Partnership  Agreement  and  individual 
programmes of the ESI Funds. At the same time, the priorities of the Partnership Agreement and ESI funded programmes are linked to 
the priorities laid down in the Czech Republic’s strategic documents.  In the current programming period, the emphasis is on  strategic 
decision-making and planning, which in turn leads to the desired concentration, interdependence and adherence to the principles of the 
3Es in the efficient implementation of EU funds.  Accordingly, for the 2014-2020 programming period, the Czech Republic puts greater 
emphasis  on  the  connection  between  the  implementation  of  the  ESI  Funds  and  strategic  planning  (in  particular  in  the  context  of  the 
preparation,  implementation,  monitoring  and  evaluation  of  strategic  documents).  During  the  programming  period,  there  will  be  an 
assessment  of  the  contribution  of  the  implementation  of  the  ESIF  in  the  Czech  Republic  to  national  and  European  strategies,  for 
example,  to  the  National  Reform  Programme  (NRPs),  the  EU  Council’s  country-specific  recommendations  (CSR),  the  Europa  2020 

203 

 
 
 
 
strategy  and  other  cross-cutting  and  sector-based  European  and  national  strategies.  Documents  forming  the  core  argument  for  the 
strategic focus of the Partnership Agreement and individual programmes and which, via the Partnership Agreement and programmes, are 
often implemented to a large extent.  An assessment of the contribution of the ESI Funds to the implementation of the strategy will be 
part of the Partnership Agreement Progress Report. This monitoring and evaluation also has the effect of helping to better manage and 
evaluate the implementation of the strategies themselves. 

One example of the connection between the EU’s priorities (such as Horizon 2020) and national priorities could be the RIS3 strategy 
The  national  RIS3  ensures  the  effective  targeting  of  resources  towards  activities  to  strengthen  innovation  capacity  and,  at  local  and 
national level, priority future-orientated areas, with a view to making full use of knowledge potential.  At the same time, the strategy 
forms part of the tasks of national RDI policy, operating within its framework.  

A further example of the connection between national priorities and the Europa 2020 strategies, including the Horizon 2020 programme, 
is  the  activities  supported  under  the  Operational  Programme  Enterprise  for  Innovation  and  Competitiveness  in  the  area  of  sustainable 
growth for aviation (Clean Sky 2) and Community programmes. In the context of the Operational Programme Research, Development 
and Education the main supported activities are those aimed at improving education, higher employment and supporting social inclusion 
based on the Europa 2020 strategy, along with evaluation of national objectives established on the basis of that strategy and implemented 
under the National Reform Strategy.  

Question 2.1.2. 

to 
synergies 

Measures 
pursue 
and 
complementarities 
ESI 
between 
Funds 
and 
national 
programmes . 

Synergies and complementarity of the ESIF with the national and EU programmes are enshrined in the Partnership Agreement and in the 
programming documents of the individual operational programmes. At the level of the individual OPs synergies and complementarities 
with ESIF programmes and national programmes (including Community programmes) are established.  In order to establish individual 
links,  a  coordination  mechanism  has  been  set  up  to  help  manage  the  operation  of  that  connection,  most  frequently  in  the  form  of 
platforms  for  the  planning  of  calls,  monitoring  committees  and  Memoranda  of  Cooperation.  The  implementation  of  synergistic  and 
complementary links is monitored both among the individual OPs and vis-a-vis national and Community programmes. When calls are 
published for the ESIF programmes it is indicated whether that call is complementary, for example in relation to national programmes. 
The  promoter  of  national  programmes  tends  to  be  the  same  department  in  which  the  MA  is  based  so  this  also  involves  internal 
coordination  of  programmes  within  the  institution.  The  connection  and  complementarities  between  ESIF  programmes  and  national 
programmes  are  monitored  by  the  Ministry  of  Regional  Development’s  national  coordination  authority  in  the  context  of  inter-
departmental consultation procedures, pointing out possible overlaps. 

Such interconnection is provided by the hierarchy of programming and strategic levels and their links; individual calls are published for 
specific  objectives  which  are  also  linked  to  individual  aid  application/projects.  The  specific  objectives  are  then  linked  to  individual 
priority axes/investment priorities and Union priorities, programmes and thematic objectives. The established links offer the possibility 
of aggregation of the data from the project, monitoring and evaluation of financial and substantive objectives at the various levels. 

Question 2.2.1. 

Performance 
measurement 
system  to  link  EU 
measures, 
operations 
projects 

or 
to  EU 

204 

 
 
See  reply  to  Question 2.2.1   In  the  context  of  programming,  for  each  specific  objective,  indicators  were  laid  down  to  ensure  the 
measurability of output and associated results directly relating to the objectives of the programme. 

priorities/Europe 
2020 
and targets. 

objectives 

Question 2.2.2. 

Framework for the 
of 
management 
ESI 
in 
Funds 
order  to  achieve  a 
result-oriented 
system  and  impact 
of EU projects. 

Question 2.2.3. 

Yes. 

Member 
State 
actions  to  define 
or  improve  result 
indicators  at  EU 
project level. 

In  the  2014-2020  programming  period,  emphasis  was  placed,  in  the  creation  of  programme  system  indicators  system,  on  linking  the 
outputs and results of interventions i.e. quantified and result indicators. This makes it possible to better evaluate the results of the project 
in relation to the strategy of the programme. In this  programming period, ‘theories of change’ are also used,  graphically showing the 
intervention logic of each specific objective including quantified and result indicators.  Generally, however, we prefer to focus primarily 
on the link between quantified  and result indicators rather than monitoring  result  indicators at project level.   In view of the nature of 
result indicators, it is very often difficult to monitor and evaluate in such detail.   

The  JMP  system  was  established  in  the  Czech  Republic  for  regular  monitoring  of  programme  performance.  For  this  purpose,  control 
levels were also established for milestones and targets.  Monitoring and evaluation takes place at least four times a year by the Ministry 
of Regional Development’s National Coordination Authority and MA (information on risk management), and twice a year in the context 
of  reports  intended  for  the  general  public  (quarterly  report  on  the  implementation  of  ESI  Funds  in  the  Czech  Republic  for  the 
programming period from 2014 to 2020) and the members of the Monitoring Committee (i.e. half-yearly/annual review of the CFP of 
year N). 

In the context of the monitoring and evaluation system set out in point 2.2.1 we take as our  starting point the facts at operations level, 
which are aggregated at a higher level of programming lines, namely Priority Axes/Priorities of the Union. At this level monitoring and 
evaluation is mainly on the basis of a comparison of values actually achieved. and the values of milestones and targets. 

Question 2.2.4. 

Performance 
measurement 
system  to  monitor 
the 
achievement 
objectives  at  EU 
measure, 
operations 
or 
project  level  and 
the 
to  monitor 
output  and  result 
indicators  at  EU 
measure, 

205 

 
 
 
 
 
operations 
project level. 

or 

Question 3.1.1. 

Yes. 

In the context of the CAP progress made in the implementation of the recommendations of the Court of Auditors is followed up  in the 
framework of the Error Action Plan which is sent regularly to the European Commission. 

for 

Framework  or  a 
the 
system 
follow-up of ECA's 
recommendations 
addressed 
to 
Member  States  in 
annual 
Court's 
and 
special 
reports. 
and 
Monitoring 
reporting 
on 
progress  achieved 
towards 
to 
implementation  of 
Court's 
recommendations 

206 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Denmark 

Question 1.1.1 

The Regional Fund and the Social Fund: 

Main root causes in 
EU 
the  major 
areas 
spending 
(common 
agricultural  policy, 
regional  and  urban 
policy, employment, 
social  affairs  and 
inclusion) 
the 
persisting  risks  and 
errors  pointed  out 
by the ECA. 

for 

NB: In order to develop the replies, the following non-exhaustive list of examples for 
root causes of legality and regularity errors in EU expenditure may be considered 

Not 
relevant 

Relevant 
in some 
respect 

Relevant 
in most 
respect 

Fully 
relevant 

  number and complexity of rules and gold-plating 

 

incorrect transposition of applicable EU legislation into national laws 

 

failure to observe the legal and procedural requirements stemming from 
EU and national legislation and rules 

  sufficient knowledge in applying procurement rules or State aid rules or 
other  applicable  EU  legislation  and  rules  (including  conditions  and 
eligibility  criteria  for  the  rural  development  measures,  simplified  cost 
options,  reasonableness  of  costs,  result-oriented  agri-environment 
payments) 

  complex eligibility rule 

  weaknesses  in  the  set  of  eligibility  rules  that  may  lead  to  potential  for 

circumventing them 

 

insufficient quality and up-date of the Land Parcel Identification System 
(LPIS) 

  mistakes in the aid applications 

  continued risks of misinterpretation of what is the eligible area for the 

basic payment scheme  

207 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

inefficient sanction mechanism for non-compliance or low sanction rate 
for non-compliance 

For  example,  it  may  be  difficult  in  relation  to  market  profiling  below 
the tender thresholds. 

  need  of  raising  awareness,  targeted  training,  and,  development  and 
delivery  of  detailed  methodological  support  and  guidance  for  national 
and regional authorities and final beneficiaries 

  need of more or better resources and administrative capacity building 

  need  of  an  improved  quality  of  key  aspects  of  the  supervisory  and 
control  systems  (better  design  and/or  performance  of  administrative 
checks  and  on-the-spot  controls  and/or  increase  of  the  effectiveness  of 
the  work  carried  out  by  management  verifications,  audit  authorities, 
paying agencies and certification bodies) 

(The  error  rates  detected  for  the  Danish  programmes  under  the 
Structural Funds were below the Commission’s materiality threshold of 
2 %). 

  better use of the information necessary to detect and correct available in 
the supporting documents, as well as at the level of the beneficiary or a 
national/regional body 

(The  error  rates  detected  for  the  Danish  programmes  under  the 
Structural Funds were below the Commission’s materiality threshold of 
2 %). 

  sufficiently robust action plans developed to address both the causes of 
errors  and  the  weaknesses  in  the  management  and  control  systems 
and/or deficiencies in the EU spending 

(The  error  rates  detected  for  the  Danish  programmes  under  the 
Structural Funds were below the Commission’s materiality threshold of 
2 %). 

208 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 

insufficient  introduction  of  changes  by  new  legal  and/or  regulatory 
and/or procedural frameworks likely to have a significant impact on the 
causes of errors 

(The  error  rates  detected  for  the  Danish  programmes  under  the 
Structural Funds were below the Commission’s materiality threshold of 
2 %). 

  need  of  more  initiatives  for  ensuring  a  genuine  simplification  for 

beneficiaries and programmes' implementation 

  knowledge and experience sharing, and dissemination of good practices 
improving  widespread 

level  on 

at  national  and/or  at  EU 
weaknesses/deficiencies/errors 

  expected  results  from  actions  that  will  not  always  be  evident  in  short-

term 

Regarding EAFRD and EAGF 

NB: In order to develop the replies, the following non-exhaustive list of examples for 
root causes of legality and regularity errors in EU expenditure may be considered 

Not 
relevant 

Relevant 
in some 
respect 

Relevant 
in most 
respect 

Fully 
relevant 

  number and complexity of rules and gold-plating 

 

incorrect transposition of applicable EU legislation into national laws 

 

failure to observe the legal and procedural requirements stemming from 
EU and national legislation and rules 

  sufficient knowledge in applying procurement rules or State aid rules or 
other  applicable  EU  legislation  and  rules  (including  conditions  and 
eligibility  criteria  for  the  rural  development  measures,  simplified  cost 
options,  reasonableness  of  costs,  result-oriented  agri-environment 

209 

 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
payments) 

  complex eligibility rule 

  weaknesses  in  the  set  of  eligibility  rules  that  may  lead  to  potential  for 

circumventing them 

 

insufficient quality and up-date of the Land Parcel Identification System 
(LPIS) 

  mistakes in the aid applications 

  continued risks of misinterpretation of what is the  eligible area for the 

basic payment scheme  

 

inefficient sanction mechanism for non-compliance or low sanction rate 
for non-compliance 

  need  of  raising  awareness,  targeted  training,  and,  development  and 
delivery  of  detailed  methodological  support  and  guidance  for  national 
and regional authorities and final beneficiaries 

  need of more or better resources and administrative capacity building 

  need  of  an  improved  quality  of  key  aspects  of  the  supervisory  and 
control  systems  (better  design  and/or  performance  of  administrative 
checks  and  on-the-spot  controls  and/or  increase  of  the  effectiveness  of 
the  work  carried  out  by  management  verifications,  audit  authorities, 
paying agencies and certification bodies) 

210 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  better use of the information necessary to detect and correct available in 
the supporting documents, as well as at the level of the beneficiary or a 
national/regional body 

  sufficiently robust action plans developed to address both the causes of 
errors  and  the  weaknesses  in  the  management  and  control  systems 
and/or deficiencies in the EU spending 

 

insufficient  introduction  of  changes  by  new  legal  and/or  regulatory 
and/or procedural frameworks likely to have a significant impact on the 
causes of errors 

  need  of  more  initiatives  for  ensuring  a  genuine  simplification  for 

beneficiaries and programmes' implementation 

  knowledge and experience sharing, and dissemination of good practices 
improving  widespread 

level  on 

at  national  and/or  at  EU 
weaknesses/deficiencies/errors 

  expected  results  from  actions  that  will  not  always  be  evident  in  short-

term 

Question 1.1.2. 

lessons 
Main 
learned 
while 
addressing the risks 
and  errors  for  the 
EU spending. 

Documenting  indirect  costs  is  administratively  burdensome  for  beneficiaries.  Regular  dialogue/discussion  between  management, 
payment and audit authorities, focus on implementation of digital reporting tools, data sharing, simplified rules on costs (18 % standard 
rate). Since the introduction of a standard rate for indirect costs of 18 %, considerably fewer errors have been detected. 

EU public procurement rules are known and followed by the Danish beneficiaries. There are shortcomings in the documentation with 
regard  to  compliance  with  the  national  Tendering  Act  and  with  the  requirement  in  the  eligibility  rules  to  document  economy.  This 
requirement is presumably derived from the Court of Auditors’ practice. Clarification of the extent to which such a requirement exists 
would therefore strengthen the national eligibility rules. 

That management and audit authorities contribute more to increased quality of accounts and focus on impact/results through enhanced 
guidance and advice to beneficiaries. 

211 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Some beneficiaries cannot understand the absence of a national State aid authority which issues binding instructions. It can be difficult 
for beneficiaries taking part in, for example, Horizon to understand that State aid is relevant to the Structural Funds, but not to Horizon. 

EAGF  and  EAFRD:  The  questions  cut  across  funds  and  sub-populations.  It  is  therefore  also  difficult  to  fully  exclude  some  of  these 
categories of cause. Conversely, it is also difficult to identify some as much more substantive than others.  

EAFRD project support: 

Often the most complex eligibility conditions are also those which have the highest impact. 

It can be challenging to properly check the highly complex EU and national public procurement rules. For example, a clear separation 
between building/installation and service provision, boundaries for natural/artificial splitting of projects, etc. National procurement rules 
currently limit the impact of standard costs. 

Maintaining the flat-rate for indirect costs because it significantly reduces the number of errors, while easing the administrative burden 
on  beneficiaries  in  relation  to  documenting  actual  costs.  Mandatory  training  for  beneficiaries  on  EU  co-financing  rules  and  project 
administration. Project kick-off meetings with beneficiaries at the managing authority's premises.  

Declaration  of  use  for  purchases  of  goods  and  services,  which  reduces  the  administrative  burden  on  beneficiaries  and  ensures 
implementation of national procurement rules. 

Best-practice  examples  of  the  calculation  of  State  aid  are  expected  to  reduce  the  number  of  errors.  The  audit  authority  has  noticed 
beneficiaries have been better informed in the second half of the 2007-13 period as a result of an increased focus on guidance (from the 
managing authority) in the start-up phase. 

EAFRD project support: 

Denmark follows the Court’s and the Commission’s recommendations to make use of the new opportunities for using standard costs 
under the EAFRD as far as possible, since we see it as an advantage for beneficiaries and the administration. The challenge is that it 
limits the flexibility of projects, while offering better assurance for documenting reasonable costs. It gives rise to the need for new audit 
models – we need good guidelines on this from the Commission, so that we can ensure that our audit model meets the EU’s minimum 
requirements. 

Recruitment of administrators with audit qualifications and introduction of risk-based sampling techniques for administrative processing 
of cases and on-the-spot checks. 

EAGF/EAFRD: It is not appropriate to compare the findings of the Court with national procedures in this way. For example, the DAS 
audit team takes one week to review three cases once all the information is collected and available in processed form. It is not 

Question 1.1.3. 

Good practices and 
examples of success 
stories  in  the  areas 
of  compliance  with 
EU  and  national 
rules, 
eligibility 
compliance 
with 
EU  and  national 
public  procurement 
and 
legislation, 
compliance 
with 
State aid rules. 

Question 1.2.1. 

Further  measures 
to 
the 
enhance 
effectiveness  of  the 
checks  carried  out 
before  declaring  or 

212 

 
 
 
 
certifying 
expenditure  to  the 
Commission. 

appropriate from a cost/benefit perspective for Member States to devote the same resources to process all aid applications. This should 
be taken into account in the Court’s assessment before any conclusions are drawn. 

Question 1.2.2. 

Establishment of a whistle-blower and anti-fraud unit. Risk-based selection of projects for on-the-spot checks. 

Further  measures 
the 
to 
enhance 
effectiveness 
of 
to  detect 
actions 
and  correct  errors 
concerning 
expenditure,  which 
previously 
was 
or 
declared 
certified 
the 
to 
Commission. 

Question 1.3.1. 

Risk  analysis  and 
estimated  level  of 
error  in  the  major 
EU  spending  areas 
(common 
agricultural  policy, 
regional  and  urban 
policy, employment, 
social  affairs  and 
inclusion). 

EAGF/EAFRD: It is not appropriate to compare the findings of the Court with national procedures in this way. For example, the DAS 
audit  team  takes  one  week  to  review  three  cases  once  all  the  information  is  collected  and  available  in  processed  form.  It  is  not 
appropriate from a cost/benefit perspective for Member States to devote the same resources to process all aid applications. This should 
be taken into account in the Court’s assessment before any conclusions are drawn. 

Denmark has analysed the most common causes of error and subsequently simplified eligibility rules, concepts, website, etc. Kick-off 
meetings have also been introduced for all projects, focusing on the prevention of errors. Finally, the Danish Business Authority, as the 
managing authority for the Structural Funds in Denmark, is developing an electronic reporting tool, which prevents miscalculations and 
ensures that the necessary documentation is available for audit. 

The audit authority has identified a number of risk factors, which are part of the audit strategy for the Structural Funds. Work is also 
being done to make audit and supervision tasks more data-based and digital, with a view to systematic collection of data on sources of 
error,  which  makes  it  possible  to  analyse  the  reasons  for  errors  and  irregularities,  and  whether  they  are  connected  to  a  particular 
segment/company  type/project  type/location,  etc.  This  is  to  enable  preventive  action  to  minimise  the  scope  for  sources  of  error. 
Decreasing  error  rates  in,  for  example,  wage  and  time  records  are  expected  to  be  attributable  to  increased  digital  reporting,  which 
minimises human and manual sources of error. Similarly, fewer errors in, for example, handling of/compliance with procurement and 
State aid rules are expected to be attributable to training and guidance to beneficiaries on the complex regulatory framework. 

Question 1.3.2. 

Yes. 

Relationship 
between  the  basis 
for  payment  and 

The audit authority considers that there may be a connection, but the relatively low error rates in Denmark are also rooted in basic trust 
in the system and authorities, and the cause of most errors is generally lack of knowledge of complex rules, miscalculation or the like, 
rather than a genuine attempt to exploit the system (fraud). 

213 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
EAGF/EAFRD: 

Yes. 

The scale and complexity of the rules is often commensurate with the level of error. This is because it is more difficult for beneficiaries 
to remember, understand and thus ultimately comply with rules if they are numerous and complex. 

levels  of  error  in 
EU 
the  major 
areas 
spending 
(common 
agricultural  policy, 
regional  and  urban 
policy, employment, 
social  affairs  and 
inclusion). 

Question 2.1.1. 

Re Horizon2020: 

Links  between  EU 
the 
in 
priorities 
the 
of 
context 
Europe 2020 
strategy, 
including 
Horizon 2020,  and 
national priorities. 

Denmark  supports  the  overall  objectives  of  Horizon  2020,  including  the  framework  programme’s  contribution  to  implementing  the 
Europe 2020 strategy and creating smart and sustainable growth and jobs in Europe. 

The  guiding  principle  of  Horizon  2020  is  ‘excellence’,  which  implies  that  the  framework  programme  supports  the  best  research  and 
innovation  projects  without  any  consideration  of  geographical  distribution  or  structural  matters.  Denmark  strongly  supports  this 
principle, which is central to Horizon 2020's ability to help achieve the overall objectives. 

It is a Danish priority to find the right balance in the framework programme between research and innovation. Horizon 2020 is more 
focused on innovation and impact than previous framework programmes, in line with the flagship initiative of the Europe 2020 strategy, 
the  Innovation  Union.  Denmark  welcomes  this  development.  However,  an  eye  needs  to  be  kept  on  the  entire  value  chain  from 
fundamental research to innovation. 

There is a renewed focus in Horizon 2020 on impact compared with previous framework programmes. Denmark strongly supports this 
approach, which could usefully be strengthened even further. The increased focus on impact has resulted in more interdisciplinary and 
demand-driven projects, involving researchers, private companies, NGOs  and end-users. However, the expectations  regarding  impact 
are  still  described  too  vaguely  in  the  work  programmes,  which  is  challenging  for  both  applicants  and  evaluators.  Applicants  should 
know how a specific challenge should be addressed, without the range of possible solutions being narrowed. This means that the work 
programmes  should  contain  precise  descriptions  of  the  expected  impact  in  both  the  short  and  long  term.  Also,  links  to  over-arching 
policies and objectives could often be made even clearer. Danish applicants generally look for guidelines on how impact can best be 
addressed in the application. This is particularly the case in the social sciences and humanities. 

ERAC, the committee which advises the Council and Commission on the development of the European Research Area, has set up an ad 
hoc group to look at impact measurement of the framework programme at national level. Denmark supported the establishment of  the 
group and takes part in its work. 

Re EAFRD 

The  rural  development  programme  is  designed  to  finance  efforts  to  improve  the  conditions  for  agriculture  and  agricultural 
competitiveness,  pursue  environmental,  climate  and  nature  objectives,  and  rural  development  objectives.  The  programme  therefore 

214 

 
 
pursues all three Community rural development objectives set out in the Regulation: 1) competitiveness of agriculture, 2) sustainable 
management  of  natural  resources  and  climate  action,  and  3)  balanced  territorial  development  of  the  rural  economy,  including  the 
creation and maintenance of employment. The three Community objectives are pursued through the five EU priorities and ten areas of 
focus  under  which  actions  in  the  rural  development  programme  are  implemented.  The  link  between  the  Community  objectives,  EU 
priorities and areas of focus is clear from the rural development programme. 

A set of overarching objectives (impacts), specific objectives (results) and operational objectives (outputs) are set out for each measure 
in the rural development programme, as established at Community level. 

The  four  ESI  funds  in  Denmark  are  complementary  and  each  addresses  different  challenges.  The  EAFRD  provides  for  action  in 
agriculture, while the EMFF is aimed at fisheries and aquaculture, and the ERDF and ESF are targeted at all other sectors. There is also 
scope for synergy between the funds in selected areas, such as the bio-economy or food. 

Action  under  the  EAFRD  and  EMFF  is  coordinated,  among  other  things,  with  efforts  under  the  ERDF  and  ESF  programmes;  the 
Danish Agrifish Agency  and  the  Danish  Business  Authority  representing  each  other  in  the  respective  monitoring  committees  for  the 
funds. Moreover, coordination meetings are held as necessary between the managing authorities for the ESI funds to discuss progress in 
the operational programmes, for example. 

Denmark has no national programmes with the same scope as the programmes under the Structural Funds. 

The  specific  objectives  of  the  Danish  ERDF  and  ESF  programmes  are  chosen  in  such  a  way  that  they  contribute  to  achieving  the 
objectives of the Europe 2020 strategy. In order to ensure that an individual project actually helps achieve the specific objectives in the 
programmes (and hence the Europe 2020 strategy), the managing authority explicitly requires all supported projects to be based on a 
clear  and  coherent  theory  of  change/impact  chain,  i.e.  the  applicant  must  describe  the  links  between  cause  and  effect  in  the  project 
(activities, outputs and results), including by showing how the project will help achieve the specific objectives of the priority axis in 
question.  

Re ERDF and ESF: In addition to the requirement for the project to be based on a coherent theory of change (see 2.2.1 above), the 
managing authority requires the applicant to set measurable criteria for the success of project activities, outputs and results. All targets 
are  monitored  over  the  lifetime  of  the  project.  The  mandatory  performance  indicators  are  chosen  by  the  managing  authority  and 
established  in  such  a  way  that  the  expected  results  of  the  individual  project  are  very  closely  linked  to  the  specific  objectives  of  the 
priority axis to which it belongs.  

215 

Question 2.1.2. 

Measures to pursue 
synergies 
and 
complementarities 
between  ESI  Funds 
national 
and 
programmes . 

Question 2.2.1. 

Performance 
measurement 
system  to  link  EU 
measures, 
operations 
projects 
priorities/Europe 
2020 objectives and 
targets. 

or 
to  EU 

Question 2.2.2. 

Framework  for  the 
management  of  ESI 
Funds  in  order  to 
achieve  a  result-
oriented system and 

 
 
impact 
projects. 

of 

EU 

Question 2.2.3. 

Yes. 

Member 
State 
actions  to define  or 
improve 
result 
indicators  at  EU 
project level. 

Question 2.2.4. 

Performance 
measurement 
system  to  monitor 
the 
achievement 
objectives  at  EU 
measure, 
or 
operations 
project  level  and  to 
monitor  the  output 
and 
result 
indicators  at  EU 
measure, 
operations 
project level. 

or 

See point 2.2.2. 

Re ERDF and ESF: In addition to ongoing assessment of each project by means of indicators for activities, outputs and results (see 
point 2.2.2 above), the managing authority collects identification numbers (CVR and CPR numbers) of all the companies and persons 
involved  in  ERDF  and  ESF  projects.  These  identification  numbers  are  combined  with  the  registers  of  Statistics  Denmark  to  follow 
actual developments in the companies’ employment, turnover, productivity, etc., and people's access to the labour market, educational 
level  etc.,  which  are  among  the  main  actions  of  the  programmes.  The  impact  of  ERDF  and  ESF  actions  is  estimated  by  comparing 
participants' progress with control groups of companies/persons. 

Re EAFRD: The common monitoring and evaluation system referred to in Article 67 of Regulation (EU) No 1305/2013 is used in the 
rural  development  programme.  This  system  has  been  drawn  up  jointly  by  the  Commission  and  the  Member  States  with  a  view  to 
ensuring programme actions are focused on results. Objectives are set for each area of focus within the programme period. The results 
are  assessed  on  an  ongoing  basis,  including  in  the  performance  review  to  be  carried  out  in  2019,  in  accordance  with  Article 21  of 
Regulation (EU) No 1303/2013. 

In addition to the common indicators, Denmark has set out certain programme-specific indicators in the rural development programme. 
This is to improve assessment of programme results, as the indicators take account of the rationale for action in the Danish programme. 

Question 3.1.1. 

Yes. 

Re ERDF and ESF: The managing authority always takes account of the annual and special reports by the Court which could have an 
impact on the administration of the ERDF and ESF programmes. 

Re  EAFRD/EAGF:  Since  2012  the  Danish  Agrifish  Agency  has  systematically  followed  up  all  recommendations  from  the  audits. 
Management  is  informed  each  quarter  of  developments  and  can  take  appropriate  measures.  The  relevant  units  also  receive  reports, 
special reports, etc. for information, even if they contain no specific recommendations for Denmark.  

for 

Framework  or  a 
the 
system 
follow-up  of  ECA's 
recommendations 
addressed 
to 
Member  States  in 
Court's  annual  and 
reports. 
special 

216 

 
 
 
and 
Monitoring 
reporting 
on 
progress  achieved 
towards 
to 
implementation  of 
Court's 
recommendations 

217 

 
 
 
 
 
Estonia 

Question 1.1.1 

Main  root  causes 
in  the  major  EU 
spending 
areas 
(common 
agricultural 
policy, 
regional 
and  urban  policy, 
employment, 
social  affairs  and 
inclusion)  for  the 
persisting 
risks 
and errors pointed 
out by the ECA. 

NB: In order to develop the replies, the following non-exhaustive list of examples for 
root causes of legality and regularity errors in EU expenditure may be considered 

Not 
relevant 

Relevant 
in some 
respect 

Relevant 
in most 
respect 

Fully 
relevant 

  number and complexity of rules and gold-plating 

 

 

incorrect transposition of applicable EU legislation into national laws; 
Comment: for regional and urban policy, ‘Not relevant’ 

failure to observe the legal and procedural requirements stemming from 
EU and national legislation and rules 

  sufficient knowledge in applying procurement rules or State aid rules or 
other  applicable  EU  legislation  and  rules  (including  conditions  and 
eligibility  criteria  for  the  rural  development  measures,  simplified  cost 
options,  reasonableness  of  costs,  result-oriented  agri-environment 
payments) 

  complex  eligibility  rule;  Comment:  for  regional  and  urban  policy, 

‘Relevant in some respects’ 

  weaknesses  in  the  set  of  eligibility  rules  that  may  lead  to  potential  for 

circumventing them 

 

insufficient quality and up-date of the Land Parcel Identification System 
(LPIS) 

  mistakes  in  the  aid  applications;  Comment:  for  regional  and  urban 

policy, ‘Not relevant’ 

218 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  continued risks of misinterpretation of what is the eligible area for the 

basic payment scheme  

 

inefficient sanction mechanism for non-compliance or low sanction rate 
for  non-compliance;  Comment:  for  regional  and  urban  policy,  ‘Not 
relevant’ 

  need  of  raising  awareness,  targeted  training,  and,  development  and 
delivery  of  detailed  methodological  support  and  guidance  for  national 
and regional authorities and final beneficiaries; Comment: for regional 
and urban policy, ‘Fully relevant’ 

  need of more or better resources and administrative capacity building 

  need  of  an  improved  quality  of  key  aspects  of  the  supervisory  and 
control  systems  (better  design  and/or  performance  of  administrative 
checks  and  on-the-spot  controls  and/or  increase  of  the  effectiveness  of 
the  work  carried  out  by  management  verifications,  audit  authorities, 
paying agencies and certification bodies) 

  better use of the information necessary to detect and correct available in 
the supporting documents, as well as at the level of the beneficiary or a 
national/regional  body;  Comment:  for  regional  and  urban  policy, 
‘Relevant in most respects’ 

  sufficiently robust action plans developed to address both the causes of 
errors  and  the  weaknesses  in  the  management  and  control  systems 
and/or deficiencies in the EU spending 

 

insufficient  introduction  of  changes  by  new  legal  and/or  regulatory 
and/or procedural frameworks likely to have a significant impact on the 
causes of errors 

219 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  need  of  more  initiatives  for  ensuring  a  genuine  simplification  for 

beneficiaries and programmes' implementation 

  knowledge and experience sharing, and dissemination of good practices 
improving  widespread 

level  on 

at  national  and/or  at  EU 
weaknesses/deficiencies/errors 

Question 1.1.2. 

lessons 
Main 
while 
learned 
addressing 
the 
risks  and  errors 
for 
EU 
the 
spending. 

  expected  results  from  actions  that  will  not  always  be  evident  in  short-

term; Comment: for regional and urban policy, ‘Not relevant’ 

In places there are too many Commission guidelines that the Member States are supposed to follow. Before implementation can begin on 
the  basis  of  the  existing  (partly incomplete)  guidelines,  changes  are  made.  Implementation  of  the  2014–2020 period  has  already  been 
under way for two years, yet in the case of, for instance, financial instruments, the Commission is still drawing up new guidelines. The 
final  ones  should  be  completed  next  year.  As  regards  State  aid,  there  is  a  need  for  greater  sharing  of  knowledge  and  experience  at 
national level and enhanced cooperation between the Member State and the EU, so as to be able to be proactive in addressing various 
potential weaknesses. 

From the domestic point of view, guidelines are essential to achieve a better result. In order to ensure a common understanding of the 
rules and transparency as regards the conditions for granting aid, we regulate the significant aspects at national level. In order to achieve 
better results, it is also important to pay considerable attention to the process of assessing projects and setting selection criteria and to 
raise awareness among applicants for aid. Extending the EU requirements at local level, without imposing additional rules, would help 
beneficiaries plan their projects in a better manner and increase their feeling of responsibility towards achieving results. State aid poses a 
sizeable challenge to all parties, since the Member States have paid less attention to it than previously. Furthermore, as a result of the 
shortcomings identified in audits of various Member States, Estonia has also intensified the implementation of schemes from the point of 
view of State aid (e.g. the issue of incentive effect) and begun to pay greater attention to various topics relating to State aid also when 
carrying out monitoring. As a result of the GBER and  De Minimis Regulations that have been supplemented in recent years and now 
provide  clearer  rules,  implementation  now  seems  to  have  improved,  with  fewer  errors  and  infringements  caused  by  the  previous 
ambiguous  interpretations  of  those  Regulations  (e.g.  the  calculation  of  aid  in  the  case  of  corporations).  The  main  lesson  learned  as 
regards the legislation dealing with public procurements has been the need to prevent mistakes in public procurements in order to avoid 
financial  corrections.  To  this  end,  implementing  bodies  conduct  ex-ante  public  procurement  checks  of  beneficiaries,  providing 
beneficiaries with advice and recommendations regarding the preparation of procurement documents and contract notices and decision-
making by contracting authorities. The fact that the beneficiary, before the procurement documents and contract notice are published (i.e. 
before  the  public  procurement  is  launched),  can  correct  the  contents  of  the  documents  and  make  them  clearer  in  line  with  the 
recommendations  and  advice  received  from  the  implementing  bodies  contributes  to  avoiding  mistakes  that  would  otherwise  have 
resulted in financial corrections. In addition, a single public procurement checklist has been introduced at the implementing bodies. This 
is used when checking public procurements, and its aim is to harmonise the scope and quality of the checks. 

220 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Regional and urban policy: 

As regards public procurements, the risk area is a possible change in the compulsory nature of the public procurement by beneficiaries 
during the implementation of a project, which increases the work involved in verifying the reporting and in certifying expenditure. 

The State aid rules were implemented only rarely in the ETC programmes in the 2007–2013 period. During the 2014–2020 period it has 
become clear that it is extremely complicated to grant State aid in the ETC programmes as a result of the ‘grey areas’ in the Regulations 
and their varying interpretations. Examples: 

  Which country is the provider of State aid or de minimis aid if a programme has a joint budget and several countries cooperate in 

implementing it? 

  How  should  the  maximum  amount  of  de  minimis  aid  be  calculated  in  respect  of  a  programme  in  which  several  countries 
cooperate?  For  instance,  if  there  is  a  cooperation  programme  involving  four  Member  States,  can  de  minimis  aid  totalling 
4 × EUR 200 000 really be granted to one and the same company? 

  How should projects involving a State aid component actually be implemented if there is more than one beneficiary and they 
have  different  co-financing  rates  for  different  activities,  and  this  not  just  at  project  level  but  also  at  beneficiary  level?  How 
should  the  budget  be  drawn  up,  how  should  reporting  be  carried  out,  how  should  the  reporting  be  verified,  and  how  can 
assurance be obtained at programme level that the documents forming the basis for payments are correct? 

With  the  aim  of  providing  more  support  for  expenditure  arising  from  the  actual  project  operations  themselves  and  reducing  the 
administrative  burden  caused  by  calculating  the  eligible  part  of  overall  costs  (it  has  been  assessed  that,  on  average,  the  process  of 
administering 20 % of the expenditure takes 80 % of the working time), overall costs of structural aid projects in the 2014–2020 period 
in  Estonia  are  being  reimbursed  using  only  a  uniform  rate  (in  general  15 %  of  the  direct  personnel  costs  of  the  project).  Public 
procurements are used in many cases, to obtain better results and to ensure reasonable levels of expenditure and fairer use of EU funds. 
We use different unit prices to fund operations, primarily in the education and social fields.  

Regional and urban policy 

Use  of  simplified  expenditure,  so  that  when  it  is  being  verified  more  emphasis  can  be  placed  on  procurements,  since  these  involve 
greater risk than other expenditure. 

Question 1.1.3. 

practices 
Good 
and  examples  of 
success  stories  in 
the 
of 
areas 
compliance  with 
EU  and  national 
eligibility 
rules, 
compliance  with 
EU  and  national 
public 
procurement 
legislation, 
and 
compliance  with 
State aid rules. 

221 

 
 
 
Question 1.2.1. 

Further  measures 
to 
the 
enhance 
effectiveness of the 
checks  carried  out 
declaring 
before 
or 
certifying 
expenditure  to  the 
Commission. 

The introduction  of an electronic environment  for applicants in Estonia from 2015 has improved the quality of the data submitted  by 
applicants and beneficiaries (e.g. project applications and payment requests), because systematic checks are carried out on information 
submitted  via  the  electronic  environment,  thus  minimising  the  risk  of  human  error.  Furthermore,  all  the  information  is  available 
immediately in the database, which helps implementing bodies conduct the data analysis that is necessary to assess risks and identify 
problems. As a result of the amendment of the guidelines for the minimum levels of checks which entered into force on 10 May 2016, 
the  managing  authority  is  steering  implementing  bodies  away  from  catch-all  checks  and  towards  ever  more  risk-based  checks  of 
documents (e.g. checks of payment requests, procurement checks) and on-the-spot checks in order to focus a larger part of the resources 
available for checks on problem areas, which in turn will contribute to being able to identify ineligible expenditure more efficiently. In 
2015 and 2016 there have been enhancements in cooperation, training events, seminars, exchange of good practice and agreements to 
detect fraud, and cooperation between the investigating authorities, the managing authority and implementing bodies has intensified in 
this field.  

Regional and urban policy 

The use of simplified expenditure saves time for those verifying the expenditure, allowing them to concentrate on aspects of greater risk, 
such as procurement information. 

The electronic monitoring system developed by Interact for the ETC programmes is structured in line with the requirements set out in the 
Regulations, and its workflow processes have been designed such that, when expenditure reaches the certification stage, the official from 
the certifying authority will have automatic access to a number of declarations, which will speed up and simplify his or her  work (the 
checklist is correspondingly shorter) and give him or her the opportunity to search for material errors. 

The  same  measures  as  referred  to  in  the  reply  to  item 1.2.1  contribute  to  enhancing  the  effectiveness  of  actions  to  detect  errors 
concerning expenditure that has already been declared or certified. 

Regional and urban policy: 

The use of simplified expenditure and the availability of all expenditure documents in the electronic information system facilitates the 
audit authority’s work. Attention is focused on informing the programme authorities and OLAF of infringements, fraud and suspected 
corruption, and on processing the relevant information. 

The managing authority conducts an annual risk assessment together with the implementing bodies and implementing authorities. During 
it, the main risks are identified and measures are agreed on to manage those risks. In accordance with the level of error and the risks and 

222 

Question 1.2.2. 

Further  measures 
the 
to 
enhance 
of 
effectiveness 
to  detect 
actions 
and  correct  errors 
concerning 
expenditure, which 
previously 
was 
or 
declared 
certified 
the 
to 
Commission. 

Question 1.3.1. 

Risk  analysis  and 

 
 
estimated  level  of 
error  in  the  major 
EU spending areas 
(common 
agricultural 
policy, 
regional 
and  urban  policy, 
employment, 
social  affairs  and 
inclusion). 

shortcomings identified, the managing authority – where necessary – clarifies/modifies the management and control system requirements 
aimed  at  developers  and  carries  out  checks  across  the  system.  Where  the  level  of  error  is  low,  the  managing  authority  considers  it 
important to focus the checks on risk-related aspects, by reducing their numbers while at the same time continuing to pay attention to 
high and medium-risk areas.  

Regional and urban policy 

Cross-border cooperation programmes where the managing authority is located in Estonia conduct an annual risk assessment and draw 
up or update an action plan on the basis thereof. 

Question 1.3.2. 

Yes. 

The  majority  of  the  observations  made  during  checks  on  payments  concern  the  use  of  structural  aid  for  the  intended  purpose  and 
compliance with the public procurement conditions, which in turn make a contribution (in Estonia a small contribution) to the formation 
of the level of error. 

Regional and urban policy 

For example, where the basis for making payments is verification of 100 % of expenditure documents, those conducting the verification 
do not necessarily, owing to the lack of resources, concentrate on the main expenditure that is deemed to be high-risk, i.e. the accuracy 
of the procurement. 

The grounds used for planning the use of EU structural resources were the EU2020 (‘Estonia 2020’) objectives and indicators, and thus 
there is a direct link between them. Similarly, one of the principles when planning the use of the resources was to focus them to ensure 
performance. 

Relationship 
between  the  basis 
for  payment  and 
levels  of  error  in 
the  major  EU 
areas 
spending 
(common 
agricultural 
policy, 
regional 
and  urban  policy, 
employment, 
social  affairs  and 
inclusion). 

Question 2.1.1. 

Links  between  EU 
in 
the 
priorities 
context 
the 
of 
Europe 2020 
strategy,  including 
Horizon 2020,  and 
national priorities. 

223 

 
 
Question 2.1.2. 

to 
synergies 

Measures 
pursue 
and 
complementarities 
ESI 
between 
Funds 
and 
national 
programmes . 

Question 2.2.1. 

Performance 
measurement 
system  to  link  EU 
measures, 
operations 
projects 
priorities/Europe 
2020 
and targets. 

or 
to  EU 

objectives 

Question 2.2.2. 

Framework for the 
of 
management 
ESI 
in 
Funds 
order  to  achieve  a 
result-oriented 
system  and  impact 
of EU projects. 

Planning  the  use  of  the  resources  was  based  on  the  EE2020  objectives  and  also  national  development  documents,  in  order  to  use 
EU resources to address weaknesses at national level. When planning and now also applying the resources, there has been a streamlining 
of the planning, implementation and monitoring processes at the managing authority. For example, the monitoring of both national and 
external resources is being aligned to reduce the administrative burden, to distinguish more clearly between the results produced from 
different  sources,  and  also  to  contribute  to  the  common  planning  process  for  the  following  years.  By  2020  at  the  latest,  planning  at 
national  level  will  have  moved  to  activity-based  (results-based)  budgeting  (this  has  already  taken  place in  part),  which  will  allow  the 
services being offered, their expenditure and their outputs and results to be ascertained. This will make it possible to reduce duplication 
of resources and to target resources from different sources more clearly. 

The  intervention  logic  agreed  in  the  Cohesion  Policy  operational  programme  and  its  indicators  have  been  developed  on  the  basis  of 
additional  EU2020  and  national  objectives.  Additional  intervention  logic  indicators  have  to  contribute  to  operational  programme 
indicators (output and results), which in turn contribute to the EU2020 objectives and the target levels of the indicators. 

As part of the monitoring, information systems have been set up which can be used at any time to determine the extent to which target 
levels have been achieved at measure, action and project level. The implementing bodies have also put in place additional indicators for 
measuring activities to meet the additional data requirements set by the implementing authorities. 

Regional and urban policy 

Links are created in the operational programme and in the ETC programme guidelines, which are mandatory for beneficiaries. Project 
indicators are linked to programme indicators, and they are monitored regularly. The programme evaluation plan reflects the objectives 
and indicators set out in the operational programme, as well as the deadlines for the reporting to be submitted to the Commission, and 
also provides an overview of how their day-to-day measurement should be carried out, where the focus should be and which methods 
should be used. 

In Estonia there is a relatively centralised planning and implementation system and one single ESIF area. The managing authority for the 
ESF,  CF  and  ERDF  is  the  Ministry  of  Finance.  Implementation  of  those  funds  forms  part  of  the  CFP  operational  programme.  The 
managing authority for the EAFRD and EMFF is the Ministry of Rural Affairs, and they are implemented within the framework of the 
two relevant operational programmes. 

Regional and urban policy 

Links are created in the operational programme and in the ETC programme guidelines, which are mandatory for beneficiaries. Project 
indicators are linked to programme indicators, and they are monitored regularly both during processing of reporting on the projects and 
within the framework of the programme evaluation plan. 

Question 2.2.3. 

No. 

224 

 
 
 
From  the  point  of  view  of  the  hierarchy  of  indicators  (effect,  result  and  output),  the  value  of  setting  adequate  and  practical  result 
indicators at project level is often questionable. Therefore this should be imposed in justified cases, and not made mandatory in all cases. 

Regional and urban policy 

Yes. 

In  the  ETC programme  guidelines,  which  are  mandatory  for  beneficiaries,  project  indicators  are  linked  to  programme  indicators,  and 
they  are  monitored  regularly.  Applicants  are  offered  advice  and  informed  of  the  necessity  and  importance  of  achieving  the  indicators 
planned in the programme. 

As part of the monitoring, information systems have been set up which can be used at any time to determine the extent to which target 
levels have been achieved at measure, action and project level. The implementing bodies have also put in place additional indicators for 
measuring activities to meet the additional data requirements set by the implementing authorities. 

Furthermore, performance is also validated as part of the assessments commissioned by the managing authority and the implementing 
authorities. 

Regional and urban policy 

The  objectives  and  the  output  and  result  indicators  of  the  ETC programme  are  set  out  in  the  operational  programme.  In  the 
ETC programme  guidelines,  which  are  mandatory  for  beneficiaries,  they  are  linked  to  projects,  and  there  is  a  description  of  the 
obligations as regards project reports. At programme level there is regular monitoring both of the information available in the project 
reports and as part of the programme evaluation plan, which sets out various options for measuring results in terms of the programme 
objectives and the output and performance indicators. 

Member 
State 
actions  to  define 
or  improve  result 
indicators  at  EU 
project level. 

Question 2.2.4. 

Performance 
measurement 
system  to  monitor 
achievement 
the 
objectives  at  EU 
measure, 
operations 
or 
project  level  and 
to  monitor 
the 
output  and  result 
indicators  at  EU 
measure, 
operations 
project level. 

or 

Question 3.1.1. 

Yes. 

for 

Framework  or  a 
system 
the 
follow-up of ECA's 
recommendations 
addressed 
to 
Member  States  in 
annual 
Court's 
and 
special 
reports. 

The Court of Auditors’ annual and special reports are submitted primarily to the audit authorities, although if there is interest they are 
also available on their websites. Since, as a general rule, all CoA reports are presented to the European Commission and the  Member 
States  in  the  corresponding  working  groups  and  the  Commission  is  required  to  reply  to  the  observations  made  (above  all  to  the 
observations made to it), systems and processes are – depending on the status of the observation (agreement/no agreement) – made more 
effective by the Commission by means of the regulations and guidelines it issues, which in turn affect how the Member States administer 
aid. Estonia has not deemed  it necessary to  enact additional regulations  which could create further layers of bureaucracy and make it 
more  difficult  to  apply  implementation  schemes  (incl.  increasing  costs).  In  situations  where  requirements  have  arisen  from  the  audit 
report  or  have  been  imposed  by  the  Commission,  we  have  instead  provided  better,  clearer  and  more  unequivocal  regulation  in  our 
operational  procedures,  in  cooperation  with  our  implementing  bodies  and  implementing  authorities,  and  we  have  also  provided 

225 

 
 
examples. Where there has been  a special audit report aimed  at the Member State,  Estonia as a Member State has adopted  additional 
measures in the corresponding fields/activities. For instance, the procedures of the implementing bodies must set out how and on what 
conditions  an  assessment  of  State  aid  is  made  and  what  the  supporting  documents  are.  The  managing  authority  monitors  the 
implementation of follow-up activities. 

and 
Monitoring 
reporting 
on 
progress  achieved 
towards 
to 
implementation  of 
Court's 
recommendations 

226 

 
 
 
 
 
Finland 

Question 1.1.1 

Main  root  causes 
in  the  major  EU 
areas 
spending 
(common 
agricultural 
policy, 
regional 
and  urban  policy, 
employment, 
social  affairs  and 
inclusion)  for  the 
persisting 
risks 
and errors pointed 
out by the ECA. 

NB: In order to develop the replies, the following non-exhaustive list of examples for 
root causes of legality and regularity errors in EU expenditure may be considered 

Not 
relevant 

Relevant 
in some 
respect 

Relevant 
in most 
respect 

Fully 
relevant 

X 

X 

X 

  number and complexity of rules and gold-plating 

 

incorrect transposition of applicable EU legislation into national laws 

X 

 

failure to observe the legal and procedural requirements stemming from 
EU and national legislation and rules 

  sufficient knowledge in applying procurement rules or State aid rules or 
other  applicable  EU  legislation  and  rules  (including  conditions  and 
eligibility  criteria  for  the  rural  development  measures,  simplified  cost 
options,  reasonableness  of  costs,  result-oriented  agri-environment 
payments) 

  complex eligibility rule 

  weaknesses  in  the  set  of  eligibility  rules  that  may  lead  to  potential  for 

circumventing them 

 

insufficient quality and up-date of the Land Parcel Identification System 
(LPIS) 

X 

  mistakes in the aid applications 

  continued risks of misinterpretation of what is the eligible area for the 

basic payment scheme  

X 

X 

X 

X 

227 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

inefficient sanction mechanism for non-compliance or low sanction rate 
for non-compliance 

X 

  need  of  raising  awareness,  targeted  training,  and,  development  and 
delivery  of  detailed  methodological  support  and  guidance  for  national 
and regional authorities and final beneficiaries 

  need of more or better resources and administrative capacity building 

  need  of  an  improved  quality  of  key  aspects  of  the  supervisory  and 
control  systems  (better  design  and/or  performance  of  administrative 
checks  and  on-the-spot  controls  and/or  increase  of  the  effectiveness  of 
the  work  carried  out  by  management  verifications,  audit  authorities, 
paying agencies and certification bodies) 

X 

  better use of the information necessary to detect and correct available in 
the supporting documents, as well as at the level of the beneficiary or a 
national/regional body 

  sufficiently robust action plans developed to address both the causes of 
errors  and  the  weaknesses  in  the  management  and  control  systems 
and/or deficiencies in the EU spending 

 

insufficient  introduction  of  changes  by  new  legal  and/or  regulatory 
and/or procedural frameworks likely to have a significant impact on the 
causes of errors 

  need  of  more  initiatives  for  ensuring  a  genuine  simplification  for 

beneficiaries and programmes' implementation 

  knowledge and experience sharing, and dissemination of good practices 
improving  widespread 

at  national  and/or  at  EU 

level  on 

228 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
weaknesses/deficiencies/errors 

  expected  results  from  actions  that  will  not  always  be  evident  in  short-

X 

term 

Question 1.1.2. 

Reply of the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry:  

lessons 
Main 
while 
learned 
addressing 
the 
risks  and  errors 
for 
EU 
the 
spending. 

-  The eligibility rules and the requirement to check each condition cause a heavy workload and do not reflect the actual risk. Member 
States should be allowed to carry out real risk-based checks in order to reduce checks and focus on high-risk cases. At present this is 
not possible, because Member States are punished for overly efficient risk-based checks by having additional control requirements 
imposed on them.  

- 

- 

In many audits in other sectors, the tolerable risk is 5% or 10% instead of 2%, and this should be the aim, so that resources could be 
used to target actual risks and their monitoring and checks and sanctions would not focus on human errors.  

In  the  present  model,  where  checks  target  good  operators  and  fraudulent  operators  in  the  same  way,  there  is  a  danger  that  good 
operators will become discouraged and fraudulent operators will gain more power. Young people are unwilling to participate in such 
a system, where they have to constantly fear making unintended errors.  

-  Since  the  reform  of  the  CAP2020,  the  focus  of  aid  schemes  has  shifted  to  trivial  matters  and  the  conditions  have  become  very 
detailed. The more detailed the monitoring, the more difficult it is to carry out checks and define sanctions. Nowadays agricultural 
parcels are subject to different types and levels of aid, which results in an accumulation and overlapping of errors. In addition, the 
sanctions under the different aid schemes are often based on the same error. As regards animals, it is necessary to record dozens of 
data items in the identification and registration system, which means that the error risk is high. 

-  The  Omnibus  proposal  would  change  the  way  compliance  with  tendering  rules  impacts  the  severity  of  sanctions,  and  this  is  a 
worthwhile proposal, because there are other objectives to be considered. ‘However, the public procurement is a procedure to select 
the contractor, used in order to ensure reasonableness of costs of a project. It is  not directly linked to the eligibility of the project 
stemming from the CAP policy objectives.’ 

Reply of the audit authority of the Structural Funds:  

- 

In the 2014-2020 programming period there will be new essential requirements for administration and control systems in order to 
improve the reliability of the internal monitoring environment and the administrative and control activities. The new requirements 
for  the  administrative  authority  include  appropriate  procedures  for  preparing  the  management  declaration  as  well  as  adequate 
measures to combat fraud. 

-  The intermediate bodies should pay more attention to advising beneficiaries in the rules governing procurements. 

229 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Question 1.1.3. 

practices 
Good 
and  examples  of 
success  stories  in 
the 
of 
areas 
compliance  with 
EU  and  national 
eligibility 
rules, 
compliance  with 
EU  and  national 
public 
procurement 
legislation, 
and 
compliance  with 
State aid rules. 

Question 1.2.1. 

Further  measures 
the 
enhance 
to 
effectiveness of the 
checks  carried  out 
before 
declaring 
certifying 
or 
expenditure  to  the 
Commission. 

Reply of the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry:  

-  electronic systems, farmers’ electronic service, for example when calculating complicated greening payments 

-  email and sms reminders of important deadlines 

- 

- 

the full introduction of geospatial applications without transitional periods  

the  principle  selected  in  the  land  parcel  register  whereby  a  parcel  only  has  eligible  area  is  easier  in  the  case  of  geospatial 
applications, for example (the farmer does not need to separately deduct ineligible land inside a parcel) 

-  90% of all applications are submitted in the Vipu system, where the new areas are updated directly in the application and the farmer 

may leave them as they are or modify them. 

- 

there is a need for simplified cost options also in livestock and area aid, but at the moment they are not allowed by legislation. 

-  a more detailed check list 

-  stricter requirements for the level of detail of the documentation  

- 

training 

Reply of the audit authority of the Structural Funds:  

- 

In the new programming period the electronic system will ensure full access to the documents from the beneficiary to the  finance 
provider  and  also  to  the  inspection  authorities.  It  can  also  be  expected  that  the  documentary  requirements  will  become  more 
consistent. 

-  There are positive experiences with the use of simplified cost options from the 2007-2013 programming period, and their role will 
grow in the new programming period. With this procedure, it is possible to concentrate on evaluating results, as less time is spent 
estimating costs. 

Reply of the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry:  

-  certain documents must be sent to the authorities 

-  electronic systems, farmers’ electronic service, for example when calculating complicated greening payments 

-  email and sms reminders of important deadlines 

-  continuous training, inter alia  using videoconferencing equipment 

-  providing more detailed guidance 

-  drawing up more detailed check lists 

230 

 
 
 
-  organisational changes 

Reply of the audit authority of the Structural Funds: 

-  System audits focus on key requirements that show whether the intermediate body has the capacity to make adequate decisions.  

-  The checks on the designation criteria have covered the supervisory responsibility of the administrative authorities and ensured the 

adequacy and timeliness of the procedures. 

Reply of the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry:  

- 

the corrective measures in the action plans have been taken in the new programming period (different aid conditions) 

Reply of the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry:  

- 

the control sampling includes a risk-based section whose results are analysed 

-  LPIS quality control (it can be seen that the errors are minor. It is not possible to avoid minor errors at a reasonable cost.) 

Question 1.2.2. 

Further  measures 
the 
to 
enhance 
of 
effectiveness 
to  detect 
actions 
and  correct  errors 
concerning 
expenditure, which 
previously 
was 
or 
declared 
certified 
the 
to 
Commission. 

Question 1.3.1. 

Risk  analysis  and 
estimated  level  of 
error  in  the  major 
EU spending areas 
(common 
agricultural 
policy, 
regional 
and  urban  policy, 
employment, 
social  affairs  and 
inclusion). 

231 

 
 
 
 
 
Question 1.3.2. 

No.  

Relationship 
between  the  basis 
for  payment  and 
levels  of  error  in 
the  major  EU 
spending 
areas 
(common 
agricultural 
regional 
policy, 
and  urban  policy, 
employment, 
social  affairs  and 
inclusion). 

Question 2.1.1. 

Links  between  EU 
the 
in 
priorities 
context 
the 
of 
Europe 2020 
strategy,  including 
Horizon 2020,  and 
national priorities. 

Question 2.1.2. 

to 
synergies 

Measures 
pursue 
and 
complementarities 
ESI 
between 
Funds 
and 
national 
programmes . 

Reply of the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry: These are very small area errors, which are not substantial and often cannot even 
be detected. Often it is a matter of two people interpreting a measurement differently and not of any real difference. A tolerance value is 
used, which in itself shows that the measurement methods are not fully accurate. It is not possible to avoid minor errors at a reasonable 
cost. Simplified methods of compensation should be used so that it would not be necessary to constantly take measurements. Following 
the CAP reform, virtual parcels and layers have been added to the land parcel register that have nothing to do with the actual situation 
under  review  but  instead  make  the  register  burdensome  and  hard  to  use.  Cross  compliance  belongs  to  another  policy  sector  and  it 
shouldn’t affect error rates - this also applies to tendering and the marking and registration of animals. In addition, it should be noted that 
cross-compliance  sanctions  relate  to  all  of  a  farm's  aid  schemes  (livestock  aid  and  area  aid)  and  such  sanctions  are  inequitable  for  a 
farmer when the error only concerns the conditions for either the livestock aid or the area aid. Similarly, the error rate based thereon is 
inconsistent unjustifiably raises the error rate. 

Finland’s  2020  targets  exceed  the  EU’s  general  targets,  as  this  is  considered  necessary  for  the  sustainability  of  public  finances.  The 
national measures under the strategy will be implemented in line with the existing fiscal framework decision. The regional development 
decision  for  2016-2019  sets  out  the  national  regional  policy  orientations  and  the  development  priorities,  which  are  also  implemented 
through the programmes of the European Structural and Investment Funds. 

232 

 
 
 
Question 2.2.1. 

Performance 
measurement 
system  to  link  EU 
measures, 
operations 
projects 
priorities/Europe 
2020 
and targets. 

or 
to  EU 

objectives 

Question 2.2.2. 

Framework for the 
of 
management 
ESI 
in 
Funds 
order  to  achieve  a 
result-oriented 
system  and  impact 
of EU projects. 

Question 2.2.3. 

Member 
State 
actions  to  define 
or  improve  result 
indicators  at  EU 
project level. 

Question 2.2.4. 

Performance 
measurement 
system  to  monitor 
the 
achievement 
objectives  at  EU 
measure, 

No. 
Reply of the Ministry of Employment and the Economy: Project-specific performance indicators can be collected for ESF projects, 
but no project-specific objectives have been specified for the performance indicators. In ERDF projects, no project-specific performance 
indicators are collected. 

Reply  of the Ministry of Employment and the Economy:  Information  on performance  and output indicators (and consequently the 
performance framework) can be obtained for the EURA 2014 and ESR Henkilö systems. The EURA 2014 system provides information 
on indicators by project, finance provider, etc. As regards ESF projects, reports from the ESR Henkilö system are continuously being 
developed  and  now  it  is  possible  to  obtain  information  by  programme,  axis,  finance  provider  and  project.  Objectives  related  to 
performance  indicators  are  collected  for  ERDF  projects.  Performance  indicators  are  not  collected  at  project  level.  In  the  case  of  both 
Funds, project promoters describe the achievement of objectives more extensively in the follow-up and final reports in the EURA 2014 
system. 

233 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Reply of the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry:  

-  cooperation with research facilities 

- 

indicator framework under Regulation 1306/2013 

Yes.  
Reply  of  the  Ministry  of  Agriculture  and  Forestry:  There  is  also  a  system  for  the  follow-up  of  recommendations,  where 
recommendations and the measures taken to promote them are recorded. The status of these recommendations is reviewed periodically. 

operations 
or 
project  level  and 
the 
to  monitor 
output  and  result 
indicators  at  EU 
measure, 
operations 
project level. 

or 

Question 3.1.1. 

for 

Framework  or  a 
system 
the 
follow-up of ECA's 
recommendations 
addressed 
to 
Member  States  in 
annual 
Court's 
special 
and 
reports. 
and 
Monitoring 
reporting 
on 
progress  achieved 
towards 
to 
implementation  of 
Court's 
recommendations 

234 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
France 

Question 1.1.1 

1.  Pour les FESI  

Main  root  causes  in 
the 
EU 
major 
areas 
spending 
(common  agricultural 
policy,  regional  and 
urban 
policy, 
social 
employment, 
affairs  and  inclusion) 
for the persisting risks 
and errors pointed out 
by the ECA. 

Les causes potentielles de persistance du risque d’erreur pour ce qui concerne le respect des règles d’éligibilité, des règles relatives 
aux marchés publics ou aux aides d’Etat peuvent être de plusieurs ordres. 

Tout d’abord, le nombre de règle (surrèglementation) et la complexité quantitative qui en découle est un facteur évident de risque 
d’erreur  pour  ce  qui  concerne  le  respect  des  règles.  Une  intervention  en  conférence  de  la  Présidence  Slovaque  sur  la  politique  de 
cohésion faisait état sur la programmation actuelle de plus de 4000 pages réglementaires (règlements, décisions, guidances) contre 
1750 pages sur la programmation 2007-2013 et 1250 pages sur la programmation 2000-2006. 

La sensibilisation, la formation et l’accompagnement méthodologique des différents acteurs nous semble une condition sine qua non 
pour  répondre  à  cette  croissance  réglementaire  et  lever  les  risques  induits  liés  à  une  méconnaissance  de  telle  ou  telle  partie  de  la 
réglementation. C’est notamment dans ce cadre, qu’une amélioration des connaissances des règles relatives aux marchés publics ou 
aux aides d’Etat peut également être visée afin de doter les acteurs potentiellement concernés de compétences en la matière (autorités 
de  gestion  et  bénéficiaires).  Il  en  va  de  même  pour  le  partage  de  connaissance,  d’expérience  et  de  bonnes  pratiques  au  niveau 
national  ou  de  l’Union  afin  d’améliorer  les  savoirs  et  capacités  collectives  permettant  de  trouver  des  solutions  concrètes  aux 
difficultés  pouvant  être  rencontrées  dans  les  pratiques  quotidiennes  d’animation  et  de  gestion  des  FESI.  Dans  ce  cadre,  on  notera 
toutefois que les autorités françaises regrettent que la plateforme de questions e-wiki soit source d’insécurité juridique, les réponses 
de la DG concurrence pouvant varier dans le temps.  

Enfin, pour répondre à cette croissance réglementaire il nous semble nécessaire de  lancer davantage d’initiative en vue de garantir 
une  simplification  pour  les  bénéficiaires  et  l’exécution  des  programmes,  ceci  afin  de  palier  l’introduction  insuffisante  de 
modifications réglementaires à ce stade, essentiellement au niveau de l’Union européenne mais avec un impact au niveau national. 
Nous  pensons  notamment  ici  à  la  proportionnalité  du  contrôle,  au  renforcement  de  la  logique  de  résultat  et  à  un  principe  de 
subsidiarité réaffirmé. La compatibilité des règlements FESI avec les règlements marchés publics ou aides d’Etats est ici également 
interrogée.  

Sans 
objet 

Plutôt 
pertinent 

Assez 
pertinent 

Totalement 
pertinent 

N.B.:  pour  votre  réponse,  vous  pouvez  recourir  à  la  liste  non 
exhaustive  de  causes  profondes  des  erreurs  de  légalité  et  de 
régularité dans les dépenses de l'UE qui figure ci-après (les questions 
liées  à  la  réalisation  des  objectifs  politiques  et  à  la  valeur  ajoutée 
sont abordées à la question 2 ci-dessous). En conséquence, nous vous 
prions de bien vouloir indiquer dans quelle mesure les exemples cités 
sont  pertinents  pour  votre  pays  pour  chaque  grand  domaine  de 
dépenses de l'UE (politique agricole commune; politique régionale et 

235 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
urbaine;  emploi,  affaires  sociales  et  inclusion),  et  en  outre,    de 
développer votre réponse à la question 1.1.1 ci-dessous: 

 

le nombre et la complexité des règles et la surréglementation 

 

la transposition incorrecte en droit  national de la législation de 
l'UE applicable 

 

le non-respect des exigences juridiques et procédurales découlant 
de la législation et des règles nationales et de l'UE 

 

le degré de connaissance pour appliquer les règles relatives aux 
marchés  publics  ou  aux  aides  d'État  et  d'autres  législations  et 
règles  de  l'UE  applicables  (notamment,  les  conditions  et  les 
critères  d'éligibilité  en  ce  qui  concerne 
les  mesures  de 
développement rural, les options de coûts simplifiés, le caractère 
raisonnable des coûts, les paiements agroenvironnementaux axés 
sur les résultats) 

 

la complexité des règles d'éligibilité 

 

les  faiblesses  affectant  l'ensemble  des  règles  d'éligibilité,  qui 
peuvent déboucher sur un éventuel contournement de celles-ci 

 

la  qualité 
d’identification des parcelles agricoles (SIPA) 

l'actualisation 

et 

insuffisantes  du 

système 

 

les erreurs dans les demandes d'aides 

 

la persistance des risques de mauvaise interprétation de ce qu'est 
la surface éligible pour le régime de paiement de base  

236 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

l'inefficacité du mécanisme de sanction ou la faiblesse du niveau 
de sanction en cas de non-respect 

 

la  nécessité  de  prévoir  une  sensibilisation,  d'organiser  des 
formations  ciblées  et  de  développer  et  fournir  un  soutien  et  des 
conseils  méthodologiques  détaillés  en  faveur  des  autorités 
nationales et régionales et des bénéficiaires finals 

 

la  nécessité  d'accroître  ou  d'améliorer  les  ressources  et  de 
renforcer les capacités administratives 

 

la  nécessité  d'améliorer  la  qualité  d'aspects  essentiels  des 
systèmes  de  surveillance  et  de  contrôle  (meilleure  conception 
et/ou exécution des contrôles administratifs et contrôles sur place 
et/ou efficacité accrue des travaux réalisés lors des vérifications 
de gestion et par les autorités d'audit, les organismes payeurs et 
les organismes de certification) 

  une meilleure utilisation des informations requises en matière de 
détection  et  de  correction  qui  sont  disponibles  dans  les 
documents justificatifs ainsi qu'au niveau du bénéficiaire ou d'un 
organisme national ou régional 

 

 

l'élaboration  de  plans  d'action  suffisamment  solides  pour 
remédier aux causes des erreurs et aux lacunes des systèmes de 
gestion et de contrôle et/ou aux défaillances dans les dépenses de 
l'UE 

l'introduction  de  modifications  insuffisantes  par  les  nouveaux 
et/ou  procéduraux, 
cadres 
susceptibles  d'avoir  une  incidence  notable  sur  les  causes  des 
erreurs 

réglementaires 

légaux 

et/ou 

 

la nécessité de lancer davantage d'initiatives en vue de garantir 
une  véritable  simplification  pour  les  bénéficiaires  et  l'exécution 
des programmes 

237 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

le partage des connaissances et des expériences et la diffusion de 
bonnes pratiques au niveau national et/ou de l'UE sur la façon de 
remédier aux faiblesses/déficiences/erreurs courantes 

 

les résultats attendus d'actions qui ne seront pas toujours visibles 
à court terme 

2. Pour la politique agricole 
La question de la Cour mériterait d’être précisée afin de permettre aux Etats membres de savoir si la réponse attendue porte sur la 
situation d’aujourd’hui, ou s’il convient de se repositionner sur l’exercice financier objet du rapport annuel (exercice 2015). 

Les autorités françaises ont considéré, s’agissant de la politique agricole, qu’il convenait d’examiner la situation au regard du risque 
résiduel actuel, tenant compte des efforts réalisés depuis l’exercice financier 2015 qui s’est achevé il y a plus d’un an.  

La  mise  en  œuvre  des  plans  d’actions  FEAGA  et  FEADER  français  ont  permis  d’améliorer  la  maitrise  d’un  certain  nombre  de 
risques et de causes d’erreur. 

A titre d’exemple, la finalisation de la refonte complète du RPG (le SIPA français) pour la campagne PAC 2015 ou le cadrage au 
niveau national des modalités de contrôle du caractère raisonnable des coûts dans le cadre du FEADER, constituent des éléments de 
sécurisation majeurs. Ils ne sont pas les seuls.  

Ces sujets, comme les diverses causes d’erreur recensées par la Cour dans le cadre de la DAS, restent toutefois des points d’attention 
prioritaires pour l’ensemble des Etats membre. 

Sans 
objet 

Plutôt 
pertinent 

Assez 
pertinent 

Totalement 
pertinent 

N.B.:  pour  votre  réponse,  vous  pouvez  recourir  à  la  liste  non 
exhaustive  de  causes  profondes  des  erreurs  de  légalité  et  de 
régularité dans les dépenses de l'UE qui figure ci-après (les questions 
liées  à  la  réalisation  des  objectifs  politiques  et  à  la  valeur  ajoutée 
sont abordées à la question 2 ci-dessous). En conséquence, nous vous 
prions de bien vouloir indiquer dans quelle mesure les exemples cités 
sont  pertinents  pour  votre  pays  pour  chaque  grand  domaine  de 
dépenses de l'UE (politique agricole commune; politique régionale et 
urbaine;  emploi,  affaires  sociales  et  inclusion),  et  en  outre,    de 

238 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
développer votre réponse à la question 1.1.1 ci-dessous: 

 

le nombre et la complexité des règles et la surréglementation 

 

la transposition incorrecte en droit  national de la législation de 
l'UE applicable 

 

le non-respect des exigences juridiques et procédurales découlant 
de la législation et des règles nationales et de l'UE 

 

le degré de connaissance pour appliquer les règles relatives aux 
marchés  publics  ou  aux  aides  d'État  et  d'autres  législations  et 
règles  de  l'UE  applicables  (notamment,  les  conditions  et  les 
les  mesures  de 
critères  d'éligibilité  en  ce  qui  concerne 
développement rural, les options de coûts simplifiés, le caractère 
raisonnable des coûts, les paiements agroenvironnementaux axés 
sur les résultats) 

 

la complexité des règles d'éligibilité 

 

les  faiblesses  affectant  l'ensemble  des  règles  d'éligibilité,  qui 
peuvent déboucher sur un éventuel contournement de celles-ci 

 

la  qualité 
d’identification des parcelles agricoles (SIPA) 

l'actualisation 

et 

insuffisantes  du 

système 

 

les erreurs dans les demandes d'aides 

 

 

la persistance des risques de mauvaise interprétation de ce qu'est 
la surface éligible pour le régime de paiement de base  
l'inefficacité du mécanisme de sanction ou la faiblesse du niveau 
de sanction en cas de non-respect 

 

la  nécessité  de  prévoir  une  sensibilisation,  d'organiser  des 
formations  ciblées  et  de  développer  et  fournir  un  soutien  et  des 

239 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
conseils  méthodologiques  détaillés  en  faveur  des  autorités 
nationales et régionales et des bénéficiaires finals 

 

la  nécessité  d'accroître  ou  d'améliorer  les  ressources  et  de 
renforcer les capacités administratives 

 

la  nécessité  d'améliorer  la  qualité  d'aspects  essentiels  des 
systèmes  de  surveillance  et  de  contrôle  (meilleure  conception 
et/ou exécution des contrôles administratifs et contrôles sur place 
et/ou efficacité accrue des travaux réalisés lors des vérifications 
de gestion et par les autorités d'audit, les organismes payeurs et 
les organismes de certification) 

  une meilleure utilisation des informations requises en matière de 
détection  et  de  correction  qui  sont  disponibles  dans  les 
documents justificatifs ainsi qu'au niveau du bénéficiaire ou d'un 
organisme national ou régional 

 

 

 

 

l'élaboration  de  plans  d'action  suffisamment  solides  pour 
remédier aux causes des erreurs et aux lacunes des systèmes de 
gestion et de contrôle et/ou aux défaillances dans les dépenses de 
l'UE 

l'introduction  de  modifications  insuffisantes  par  les  nouveaux 
cadres 
et/ou  procéduraux, 
susceptibles  d'avoir  une  incidence  notable  sur  les  causes  des 
erreurs 

réglementaires 

légaux 

et/ou 

la nécessité de lancer davantage d'initiatives en vue de garantir 
une  véritable  simplification  pour  les  bénéficiaires  et  l'exécution 
des programmes 

le partage des connaissances et des expériences et la diffusion de 
bonnes pratiques au niveau national et/ou de l'UE sur la façon de 
remédier aux faiblesses/déficiences/erreurs courantes 

240 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

les résultats attendus d'actions qui ne seront pas toujours visibles 
à court terme 

Question 1.1.2. 

1.  Pour les FESI  

Main  lessons  learned 
while  addressing  the 
risks  and  errors  for 
the EU spending. 

Pour la période 2014-2020, deux décrets ont été publiés, relatifs d’une part à la mise en œuvre des programmes cofinancés par les 
FESI pour la période 2014-2020 (décret n° 2016-126  du 8  février 2016)  et d’autre  part  fixant  les règles d’éligibilité des dépenses 
cofinancées par les FESI (décret n° 2016-279 du 8 mars 2016) accompagné d’un arrêté de la même date pris en application. 

Concernant la législation nationale et de l’UE relative aux marchés publics, sur la période 2007-2013, les irrégularités provenaient, 
pour une part non-négligeable, du niveau de complexité lié directement aux procédures de passation de marchés publics. En effet, il 
existait  un  volume  important  d’actes  législatifs  tant  au  niveau  européen  qu’au  niveau  national  qui  pouvait  conduire  à  une  relative 
méconnaissance de ceux-ci et qui nécessitait une expertise et une maitrise dans la mise en place des procédures de marchés publics. 

Pour  la  nouvelle  période  de  programmation  2014-2020,  l’ordonnance  n°2015-899  du  23  juillet  2015  relative  aux  marchés  publics 
transpose, en droit français, les deux directives européennes 2014/24/UE et 2014/25/UE du 26 février 2014 afin de rassembler, au 
sein  d’un  corpus  juridique  unique,  les  règles  communes  applicables  aux  contrats  qualifiés  de  «marchés  publics»,  au  sens  des 
directives européennes.  L’ordonnance est entrée en vigueur le 1er avril 2016 avec la publication du décret du 25 mars 2016 n°2016-
360  relatifs  aux  marchés  publics.  Ces  textes  nationaux  sont  accompagnés  par  un  arrêté  du  29  mars  2016  fixant  la  liste  des 
renseignements et des documents pouvant être demandés aux candidats aux marchés publics, et une série d’avis publiés au JO du 27 
mars 2016.  

Sur la période 2007-2013, le nombre important de régimes d’aides posait des difficultés relatives au cofinancement (identification 
des assiettes éligibles, application des règles de cumul). Face à ce constat, le groupe de travail (réseau d’experts) animé par le CGET 
a, par conséquent, choisi de mettre en œuvre des régimes d’aides cadre comprenant plusieurs types d’aides et applicables par l’Etat et 
les collectivités. Ce choix permet de limiter le nombre de bases juridiques et de simplifier leur utilisation par les autorités d’octroi. 
Par exemple, le régime n° SA.40391 relatif aux aides à la RDI regroupe l’ensemble des aides offertes par le RGEC pour octroyer des 
aides en matière de recherche, développement et innovation. 

Face aux difficultés rencontrées par les autorités de gestion pour appliquer la réglementation SIEG, le groupe de travail, animé par le 
CGET (voir ci-dessous la réponse à la question 1.1.3), a produit deux fiches d’aide à l’instruction.  

Le régime NN120/90 avait fait l’objet, en Champagne-Ardenne, en 2011, d’un audit de la direction générale de la politique régionale 
et urbaine de la Commission européenne.  

Suite à cet audit, une circulaire du Secrétaire général de l’intérieur, du Délégué interministériel à l’aménagement du territoire et à 

241 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
l’attractivité régionale et du Directeur général de la compétitivité, de l’industrie et des services avait prévu les modalités de mise en 
œuvre du plan de reprise national des actions collectives cofinancées par le FEDER sur 2007-2013.  

Par ailleurs, la règlementation européenne des aides d’Etat devenant de plus en plus stricte, il est apparu nécessaire de clarifier les 
bases juridiques applicables au financement de ces actions collectives. Le groupe de travail, animé par le CGET (voir ci-dessous la 
réponse à la question 1.1.3), a proposé une méthodologie validé par une lettre de confort de la DG Concurrence. Cette méthodologie 
permet de sécuriser le financement des actions collectives pour la période 2014-2020. 

Par ailleurs, afin de promouvoir une simplification pour les bénéficiaires et gestionnaires de programmes, différentes propositions ont 
été  construites  visant  à  l’introduction  de  nouvelles  dispositions  réglementaires  au  niveau  de  l’UE,  notamment  dans  le  cadre  des 
travaux  du  GHN  sur  la  simplification  mis  en  place  par  la  Commission  européenne.  Ces  propositions  visent  notamment  la 
compatibilité des règlements FESI avec les régimes d’aides d’Etat ou les dispositions concernant les marchés publics. 

2.  Pour la politique agricole  

La charge supplémentaire de travail et/ou les coûts informatiques générés par les vérifications supplémentaires sont élevés et posent, 
dans certains cas, la question de leur proportionnalité au regard du risque encouru (exemple du niveau de précision exigé du SIPA). 

Question 1.1.3. 

Good  practices  and 
examples  of  success 
stories  in  the  areas  of 
compliance  with  EU 
and national eligibility 
rules, compliance with 
national 
EU 
procurement 
public 
and 
legislation, 
compliance  with  State 
aid rules. 

and 

Pour  faciliter  la  mise  en  œuvre  des  programmes  cofinancés  par  les  FESI,  des  réunions  régulières  sont  mises  en  places  par  le 
CGET  à  destination  de  l’ensemble  des  autorités  en  charge  des  programmes  européens  sur  différentes  thématiques  (réunions  des 
autorités de gestion, instruments financiers, lutte contre la fraude, réglementation gestion contrôle….). Le groupe interfonds sur la 
règlementation,  gestion  et  contrôle,  animé  par  le  CGET,    a  été  mis  en  place  et  a  pour  objectif    d’harmoniser  et  de  sécuriser  les 
pratiques.  Dans  ce  cadre,  un  guide  de  gestion,  de  suivi  et  de  contrôle  des  programmes  a  été  élaboré  pour  la  nouvelle  période  de 
programmation,    des  trames  communes  ont  été  mises  à  disposition  des  autorités  de  gestion  (modèle  de  demandes  d’aides,  de 
convention, de contrôle de services fait…) et des fiches métier à destination des autorités de gestion (recettes, marché public, aides 
d’Etat, éligibilité des dépenses…) sont en cours de réalisation. Par ailleurs, des notes d’interprétation et des questions-réponses sont 
régulièrement produites notamment via l’outil collaboratif du CGET (i-cget). 

De plus, les travaux auxquels participe la France dans le cadre du réseau IQ-Net permettent aux gestionnaires des programmes ainsi 
qu’à leurs partenariats d'échanger leurs expériences et de mettre en commun les bonnes pratiques sur des thèmes spécifiques ayant 
trait à la conception, la mise en œuvre, la gestion et l'évaluation des programmes des Fonds structurels. 

Concernant  le  respect  de  la  législation  nationale  et  de  l’UE  relative  aux  marchés  publics,  le  programme  national  d’assistance 
technique Europ’act 2014-2020 soutient des formations destinées aux autorités de gestion, de certification et d’audit des programmes 
sur différentes thématiques (aides d’Etat, égalité hommes-femmes…).  Une des thématiques prévues concerne les marchés publics 
dans le cadre des FESI. Ces formations doivent traiter des questions suivantes en lien avec les FESI :  

- les règles applicables en matière de marché publics ; 

- les principales irrégularités constatées et les corrections financières à appliquer ; 

242 

 
 
- exercices pratiques de contrôle de marchés publics. 

Concernant le respect de la réglementation aides d’Etat, la mise en place d’un groupe de travail, animé par le CGET, réunissant les 
représentants  de  l’Etat,  des  collectivités  territoriales  et  des  autorités  de  gestion  des  fonds  européens  permet  d’harmoniser  et  de 
sécuriser les pratiques des autorités d’octroi des aides d’Etat. Les réunions trimestrielles du groupe de travail permettent également 
aux autorités de gestion de poser leurs questions et de partager leurs expériences et bonnes pratiques. Le groupe de travail  produit 
régulièrement  des  notes  d’interprétation  pour  guider  les  autorités  d’octroi  dans  l’application  de  la  réglementation  des  aides  d’Etat 
(voir ci-dessus le point 1.1.2.). 

Les formations sur la réglementation des aides d’Etat dans le champs des FESI, soutenues par le programme national  d’assistance 
technique,  ont permis de former environ 200 personnes « ressources » au sein des autorités de gestion, de certification, de contrôle, 
de coordination au niveau national. Un kit complet de formation est également disponible sur le site Europe en France, administré par 
le CGET. 

La création du site unique dédié aux aides d’Etat sur le site Europe en France avec la création d’une boîte mail dédiée aux questions 
relatives aux aides d’Etat permet d’apporter un appui aux autorités de gestion.  

Les autorités françaises ont associé les autorités de gestion à la rédaction des régimes d’aides français ainsi qu’à la rédaction d’un 
projet de circulaire rappelant la définition de la notion d’aide, présentant les nouveaux textes européens et les principales règles de 
compatibilité des aides d’Etat et expliquant les différentes règles procédurales liées à la réglementation des aides d’Etat. 

Question 1.2.1. 

Pour le FEADER, les contrôles sur place vont être réalisés avant le dernier paiement. 

Cessions de formations/information des instructeurs et autorités de gestion. 

Further  measures  to 
the 
enhance 
effectiveness  of 
the 
checks 
carried  out 
before  declaring  or 
certifying  expenditure 
to the Commission. 

Question 1.2.2. 

Further  measures  to 
the 
enhance 
effectiveness 
of 
actions  to  detect  and 
errors 
correct 
concerning 
expenditure, 

which 

243 

 
 
 
L’évaluation des risques est un travail en continu qui repose sur l’analyse des résultats des contrôles des dossiers et des conclusions 
des audits pour identifier les causes d’erreur. 

was 
previously 
declared  or  certified 
to the Commission. 

Question 1.3.1. 

level 

analysis 

and 
Risk 
estimated 
of 
error in the major EU 
spending 
areas 
(common  agricultural 
policy,  regional  and 
policy, 
urban 
employment, 
social 
affairs and inclusion). 

Question 1.3.2. 

OUI. 

Relationship  between 
the  basis  for  payment 
and  levels  of  error  in 
the 
EU 
major 
spending 
areas 
(common  agricultural 
policy,  regional  and 
policy, 
urban 
social 
employment, 
affairs and inclusion). 

Question 2.1.1. 

in 
of 

Links  between  EU 
the 
priorities 
context 
the 
Europe 2020  strategy, 
including 
Horizon 2020, 
national priorities. 

and 

Pour les FESI, il peut exister un lien entre le fondement des paiements et les niveaux d'erreur. Toutefois, ces deux questions doivent 
être  traitées  avec  vigilance.  En  effet,  le  lien  entre  paiement  et  niveau  d’erreur  conduit  à  soutenir  le  renforcement  de  l’approche 
centrée sur une logique de résultat pour justifier des dépenses (options de coûts simplifiés et paiements sur la base des réalisations et 
résultats) et non plus sur la régularité de la dépense. Par ailleurs, il convient de soutenir une subsidiarité et une proportionnalité des 
contrôles effectués. Dans ce cadre, la proportionnalité du contrôle doit s’appliquer à tous types de contrôle.  

Pour la politique agricole, il est complexe d’identifier un lien concret entre les 2. 

La mise en cohérence de la Stratégie nationale de recherche (SNR) avec les orientations du programme cadre pour la recherche  et 
l’innovation  Horizon  2020  doit  permettre  d'accroître  la  performance  des  programmes  européens  et  nationaux  par  une  utilisation 
cohérente des soutiens. La France a finalisé en 2015 sa  SNR, inscrite dans la loi pour l’enseignement supérieur et la recherche du 23 
juillet  2013.  Cette  stratégie  a  la  double  ambition  de maintenir  la place  de  notre  pays  parmi  les  premières  puissances  de recherche 
mondiale  et de  permettre  à  la  recherche  française  de  répondre  aux  défis  scientifiques,  technologiques,  environnementaux 
et sociétaux du XXIème siècle.  L’élaboration  de  la  SNR  a  reposé  sur  une  large  consultation  de  la  communauté  scientifique  et 
universitaire,  des  partenaires  sociaux  et  économiques,  des  pôles  de  compétitivité,  des  représentants  du  monde  associatif,  des 
administrations, agences publiques et collectivités territoriales concernées ainsi que de la société civile : l’ensemble de ces acteurs a 
contribué  à  faire  émerger,  au  cours  d’un  processus  itératif,  les  grandes  orientations  stratégiques  de  recherche  proposées  au 

244 

 
 
gouvernement  et  susceptibles  d’être  déclinées  en  programmes  d’actions  prioritaires.  La  SNR  fixe  les  orientations  prioritaires  de 
recherche de notre pays pour répondre à dix défis sociétaux, identifiés en cohérence avec Horizon 2020 : gestion sobre des ressources 
et  adaptation  au  changement  climatique  ;  énergie  propre,  sûre  et  efficace  ;  renouveau  industriel  ;  santé  et  bien-être  ;  sécurité 
alimentaire et défi démographique ; mobilité et systèmes urbains durables ; société de l’information et de la communication ; sociétés 
innovantes,  intégratives  et  adaptatives    une  ambition  spatiale  pour  l’Europe ;  liberté  et  sécurité  de  l’Europe,  de  ses  citoyens 
et de ses résidents.  L’association  de  l’ensemble  des  ministères  assure  l’articulation  de  la  SNR  avec  les  différentes  stratégies 
nationales  ayant  un  impact  sur  les  grandes  orientations  de  la  recherche  scientifique  (stratégies  nationale  de  santé,  de  recherche 
énergétique, de développement durable) et sur notre développement industriel (plans de la nouvelle France industrielle et concours 
mondial d’innovation). La loi prévoit un bilan et une révision de la stratégie nationale de recherche tous les cinq ans. 

Question 2.1.2. 

to  pursue 
and 

Measures 
synergies 
complementarities 
between  ESI  Funds 
and 
national 
programmes . 

Les S3 mises en place au sein des régions françaises pour la programmation 2014-2020 doivent permettre une mise en cohérence à 
un niveau stratégique des politiques européennes, nationales et régionales pour la recherche et l'innovation. Les régions françaises 
ont  l'obligation  législative  de  développer  une  approche  plus  cohérente  d'articulation  des  politiques  et  de  complémentarité  des 
financements,  notamment  au  bénéfice  des  projets  de  recherche  et  d'innovation  et  de  leurs  impacts  sociaux  économiques,  par  la 
validation des schémas SRDEII et SRESRI.  Ces schémas sont en cohérence avec la Stratégie Nationale de Recherche (SNR) et la 
Stratégie Nationale d'Enseignement Supérieur (STRANES). En région, des articulations existent avec d'autres fonds européens (MIE, 
FED, H2020...). 

Un séminaire sur la question des complémentarités entre le programme Horizon 2020 et les FESI s’est tenu à Paris le 22 septembre 
2016.  De  nombreux  exemples  d’articulations  trouvées  en  faveur  des  projets,  au  niveau  des  acteurs  institutionnels  ou  centres  de 
recherche,  démontrent  que  les  territoires  français  développent  une  approche  plus  cohérente  d’articulation  des  politiques  et  des 
financements. 

Tous les programmes financés par les FESI de la période 2014-2020 sont rattachés aux 11 objectifs thématiques qui sont eux même 
liés à la stratégie Europe 2020. De ce fait, chaque mesure, chaque opération et chaque projet contribue aux objectifs que s’est fixée 
l’Union.  

Pour élaborer leurs programmes, les autorités de gestion françaises ont tenu compte de la règlementation européenne en matière de 
suivi, de performance et d’évaluation. 

Question 2.2.1. 

Performance 
measurement 
system 
to  link  EU  measures, 
operations  or  projects 
to 
EU 
priorities/Europe 
2020  objectives  and 
targets. 

Question 2.2.2. 

La France a suivi la règlementation européenne pour l’identification des résultats pour chaque programme. 

Framework 
the 
management  of  ESI 

for 

245 

 
 
in  order 

to 
Funds 
achieve 
result-
a 
oriented  system  and 
impact of EU projects. 

Question 2.2.3. 

OUI. 

Member  State  actions 
to  define  or  improve 
result 
indicators  at 
EU project level. 

Question 2.2.4. 

at 

monitor 

system 
the 

Performance 
measurement 
to 
achievement 
EU 
objectives 
measure, 
operations 
or project level and to 
the  output 
monitor 
and  result  indicators 
at 
measure, 
operations  or  project 
level. 

EU 

Chaque autorité de gestion a défini ses propres indicateurs de résultats, ceux-ci étant rattachés à la stratégie de chaque programme tel 
que cela est prévu règlementairement.  

Les indicateurs de résultat FEDER sont spécifiques à chaque programme.  

Les  indicateurs  de  résultat  FSE  peuvent  être  soit  spécifiques  à  chaque  programme  soit  communs,  c’est-à-dire  issus  de  la  liste  des 
indicateurs communs FSE définis règlementairement. 

Pour la période 2014-2020, les règlements européens ont introduit un système renforcé de suivi, de performance et d’évaluation pour 
chaque programme. Chaque autorité de gestion a identifié des indicateurs de réalisation pour le suivi des projets et des indicateurs de 
résultat pour le suivi de la stratégie des programmes. Chaque indicateur a des valeurs cibles à 2023. 

Les  rapports  annuels  de  mise  en  œuvre  permettront  d’effectuer  le  suivi  général  au  niveau  de  chaque  priorité  d’investissement  des 
réalisations  (et  de  ce  fait  des  indicateurs  de  réalisations)  et  des  résultats  (et  de  ce  fait  des  indicateurs  de  résultats).  [article  50,  du 
règlement (UE) no 1303/2013]. 

L’analyse de la performance est définie règlementairement [article 22, paragraphes 6 et 7, du règlement (UE) no 1303/2013]. Sur la 
base  d’atteinte  des  objectifs  au  niveau  d’un  axe  prioritaire  (ou  priorité  de  l’Union)  au  sein  d'un  programme,  une  réserve  de 
performance  pourra être débloquée (en 2019 sur  la  base des rapports annuels  de  mise en  œuvre de  2018). La Commission pourra 
également sanctionner les États membres en cas d’incapacité importante à mettre en œuvre un axe prioritaire (ou priorité de l’Union), 
constatée  à  la  suite  de  l’examen  des  performances  (article  22,  paragraphe  6,  dudit  règlement)  et  lors  de  la  clôture  (article  22, 
paragraphe 7). 

La performance sera analysée sur les réalisations et sur l’avancement financier des axes prioritaires ou priorité de l’Union. 

Les  évaluations  qui  seront  conduites  permettront  notamment  d’analyser  les  résultats  et  les  impacts  des  FESI  sur  les  thématiques 
soutenues. 

Pour  ce  qui  concerne  le  FEDER,  le  suivi  des  réalisations  pourra  se  faire  projet  par  projet.  Par  contre,  le  suivi  des  résultats  sera 
effectué  de  manière  plus  globale  par  rapport  aux  objectifs  spécifiques  à  un  niveau  macro.  Il  n’est  pas  prévu  règlementairement 
de suivi des résultats projet par projet. 

Pour ce qui concerne le FSE, le suivi des réalisations et des résultats pourra se faire projet par projet. 

Les vérifications au niveau des opérations et des projets se font au niveau de chaque autorité de gestion et selon la règlementation 

246 

 
 
spécifique à chaque fonds. 

Question 3.1.1. 

OUI. 

Le suivi est réalisé pour le FEAGA et le FEADER par le Bureau des Audits et contrôles de la DGPE, il porte sur le déroulement des 
missions, les observations et les recommandations des auditeurs européens et les suites données. 

or 

Framework 
a 
system  for  the  follow-
ECA's 
of 
up 
recommendations 
addressed  to  Member 
in  Court's 
States 
special 
annual  and 
reports.  Monitoring 
and 
on 
reporting 
achieved 
progress 
to 
towards 
implementation 
of 
Court's 
recommendations 

247 

 
 
 
 
 
Germany 

Question 1.1.1 

Main  root  causes 
in  the  major  EU 
areas 
spending 
(common 
agricultural 
policy, 
regional 
and  urban  policy, 
employment, 
social  affairs  and 
inclusion)  for  the 
persisting 
risks 
and errors pointed 
out by the ECA. 

NB: In order to develop the replies, the following non-exhaustive list of examples for 
root causes of legality and regularity errors in EU expenditure may be considered 

Not 
relevant 

Relevant 
in some 
respect 

Relevant 
in most 
respect 

Fully 
relevant 

  number and complexity of rules and gold-plating 

 

incorrect transposition of applicable EU legislation into national laws 

 

failure to observe the legal and procedural requirements stemming from 
EU and national legislation and rules 

  sufficient knowledge in applying procurement rules or State aid rules or 
other  applicable  EU  legislation  and  rules  (including  conditions  and 
eligibility  criteria  for  the  rural  development  measures,  simplified  cost 
options,  reasonableness  of  costs,  result-oriented  agri-environment 
payments) 

  complex eligibility rule 

  weaknesses  in  the  set  of  eligibility  rules  that  may  lead  to  potential  for 

circumventing them 

 

insufficient quality and up-date of the Land Parcel Identification System 
(LPIS) 

  mistakes in the aid applications 

  continued risks of misinterpretation of what is the eligible area for the 

basic payment scheme  

248 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

inefficient sanction mechanism for non-compliance or low sanction rate 
for non-compliance 

  need  of  raising  awareness,  targeted  training,  and,  development  and 
delivery  of  detailed  methodological  support  and  guidance  for  national 
and regional authorities and final beneficiaries 

  need of more or better resources and administrative capacity building 

  need  of  an  improved  quality  of  key  aspects  of  the  supervisory  and 
control  systems  (better  design  and/or  performance  of  administrative 
checks  and  on-the-spot  controls  and/or  increase  of  the  effectiveness  of 
the  work  carried  out  by  management  verifications,  audit  authorities, 
paying agencies and certification bodies) 

  better use of the information necessary to detect and correct available in 
the supporting documents, as well as at the level of the beneficiary or a 
national/regional body 

  sufficiently robust action plans developed to address both the causes of 
errors  and  the  weaknesses  in  the  management  and  control  systems 
and/or deficiencies in the EU spending 

 

insufficient  introduction  of  changes  by  new  legal  and/or  regulatory 
and/or procedural frameworks likely to have a significant impact on the 
causes of errors 

  need  of  more  initiatives  for  ensuring  a  genuine  simplification  for 

beneficiaries and programmes' implementation 

  knowledge and experience sharing, and dissemination of good practices 
improving  widespread 

level  on 

at  national  and/or  at  EU 
weaknesses/deficiencies/errors 

  expected  results  from  actions  that  will  not  always  be  evident  in  short-

term 

249 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
The  main  causes  of  the  errors  identified  with  regard  to  applying  the  rules  on  public  procurement  and  State  aid  are  the  sheer 

1) 
density of regulations in this area and the constantly increasing complexity of these rules. 
2) 
In  addition,  with  regard  to  public  procurement  law,  the  existing  regulations  must  be  interpreted  ever  more  narrowly  during 
audits,  applying  discretion  and  judgment,  based  on  known  audit  practice  at  EU  level.  However,  this  often  contradicts  general 
requirements  and  specific  circumstances  in  practice  (e.g.  the  limit  of  50 %  of  the  contract  value  only  applies,  under  the  German 
interpretation, to additional and not to modified services; however, under the ECA’s interpretation, this 50 % limit applies to all contract 
amendments). 
For State aid, it should be noted that many funding areas which traditionally were considered free of State aid are increasingly 
3) 
being judged to have some State aid relevance. This has led to an excessive audit and documentation burden without clear audit criteria 
being set for the auditing bodies. The application of the exemption rules has also proved to be difficult, as they are full  of unclear legal 
terms  and  highly  complex.  It  would  be  advisable  to  simplify  and  clarify  the  rules  and  to  support  the  authorities  and  beneficiaries  by 
providing them with guidelines, training and recommended procedures and examples. 

All bodies and authorities responsible for the shared management of the EU budget in Germany emphasise the need to prevent errors. To 
prevent errors, it is necessary to consistently comply with and apply the requisite rules, including those for public procurement and State 
aid. In order to achieve this goal, the following measures are essential: 

  Rules should be drafted as clearly, simply and comprehensibly as possible 

  Provisions (on public procurement, State aid, etc.) must be simplified 

  Lump sum grants will simplify matters 

  Authorities (in particular intermediate bodies) and beneficiaries must be provided with all necessary information in good time (= 

close monitoring) 

  Support in the form of guidelines and training is vital 

  Management audits (of public procurement and aid) should be carried out before funds are paid out to beneficiaries if possible 

  Audits should be based on clearly structured check lists (partly through drawing up own check lists for aid audits)  

  National State aid experts should be involved in aid audits, as well as before drawing up/checking aid guidelines 

  The management and control system for the 2007-2013 funding period should be improved; at the same time, management and 

control mechanisms should be implemented in the 2014-2020 funding period 

Question 1.1.2. 

lessons 
Main 
while 
learned 
addressing 
the 
risks  and  errors 
EU 
the 
for 
spending. 

250 

 
 
 
 
Question 1.1.3. 

practices 
Good 
and  examples  of 
success  stories  in 
the 
of 
areas 
compliance  with 
EU  and  national 
eligibility 
rules, 
compliance  with 
EU  and  national 
public 
procurement 
legislation, 
and 
compliance  with 
State aid rules. 

Question 1.2.1. 

Further  measures 
to 
the 
enhance 
effectiveness of the 
checks  carried  out 
declaring 
before 
or 
certifying 
expenditure  to  the 
Commission. 

In general, Germany has practices that work very well in all areas. In addition to strict compliance with EU and national eligibility rules, 
including those for public procurement and State aid, the following measures have proved successful, particularly for structural funds: 

  Using  simplified  cost  options  (e.g.  ESF  at  federal  level:  as  part  of  the  programme  implementation  for  the  2014  2020  ESF 
Operational Programme (OP) at federal level, the settlement system for five aid guidelines was successfully simplified, so that 
only  personnel  expenses,  or  personnel  expenses  and  professional  fees,  are  settled  individually.  All  other  cost  items,  such  as 
indirect administration and material costs (rent, related charges, depreciation, training costs, etc.) are now settled by applying a 
flat  rate,  on  top  of  the  personnel  expenses  and  fees  settled  individually.  No  supporting  documents  are  required  for  expenses 
settled by applying a flat rate.) 

  Public procurement: administrative checks of core elements before funds are paid out. 

  Concentration of aid with as few, experienced intermediate bodies as possible 

  Offering more guidelines and information sheets, increasing training for employees of managing authority and its intermediate 

bodies 

In general, procedures to prevent, detect and correct errors in Germany have worked and work very well, so that extensive measures to 
change  existing  systems  are  not  planned.  All  systems  focus  on  prevention  to  avoid  the  certification  and  declaration  of  ineligible 
expenditure.  For  deficiencies  identified  in  the  past,  the  procedures  will  be  adjusted  to  take  into  account  the  evaluation  results  of  the 
competent authorities or the results of Commission or ECA audits.  

The following measures should also be highlighted: 

  Ensuring no gaps in the audit trail 

  Carrying out management audits before including expenses in a payment request 

  Ensuring adequate quality of administrative audits (e.g. ESF at federal level: to ensure adequate quality of checks, the managing 
authorities  will  provide  the  intermediate  bodies  with  their  own  guidelines  for  administrative  checks.  These  guidelines  will 
include a template for carrying out audits (check list), as well as a template for documenting audit activities (audit statement). 
Likewise, the intermediate bodies will be asked, where necessary, to develop procedures tailored to the programme requirements 
in  addition  to  the  principles  set  out  in  the  guidelines.  The  managing  authority  will  get  an  overview  of  the  checks  carried  out 
through the DATES II IT system. Intermediate bodies enter audits and audit results into this system, including the type of error 
detected. In addition, the managing authority currently carries out an annual search of audit activities in the system to gain an 
overview of the on-the-spot checks performed in individual ESF funding programmes.) 

251 

 
 
 
  Early investigation of public procurement procedures implemented 

  Providing  comprehensive  check  lists  for  all  audit  steps  (auditing  of  applications  and  calls  for  funds,  on-the-spot  checks  and 

checks on proof of use of funds) 

  Recording errors at administrative audit level in a database with data analytics functions and regular updating of check lists. 

  Partially centralising audits and specialising in administrative audits 

 

Introducing risk management systems to identify critical funding areas 

  Tighter scrutiny of intermediate bodies 

The management and control systems have also proved reliable for the detection and correction of errors. There are therefore  no plans 
for extensive measures to change existing systems. Regular technical and financial controls are carried out on all projects, including after 
reimbursement of expenses. On-the-spot checks play a special role by enabling checks on the actual production of co-financed products. 
Where deficiencies were identified in the past, procedures are being adjusted to take into account the evaluation results of the competent 
authorities for management and control systems and the results of Commission or ECA audits. 

The following measures should also be highlighted: 

  Monitoring during the period of appropriation for a specific purpose 

  Control of tasks allocated to intermediate bodies by assessing projects on a case-by-case basis 

 

Improving the information flow between the audit authority and the managing authority 

  Communication measures that aim to identify the most frequent sources of errors 

  Risk management/combating fraud: assessing the existing controls for various risks and the development of action plans, where 

necessary, to improve controls 

  Random audits of individual projects prior to issuing the management declaration 

  Further follow-up of errors with financial implications by the managing authority and its intermediate bodies in the course of 

administrative checks and in the follow-up to external audits 

Question 1.2.2. 

Further  measures 
the 
enhance 
to 
of 
effectiveness 
actions 
to  detect 
and  correct  errors 
concerning 
expenditure, which 
previously 
was 
or 
declared 
the 
to 
certified 
Commission. 

Question 1.3.1. 

  Recording errors at administrative audit and audit authority level in a database with data analytics functions 

Risk  analysis  and 
estimated  level  of 
error  in  the  major 

  Establishing a risk management system (together with the audit authority) based on the most common sources of error 

  Linking the annual summary with risk management: analysis of errors detected through controls 

252 

 
 
 
  EAFRD action plans 

EU spending areas 
(common 
agricultural 
policy, 
regional 
and  urban  policy, 
employment, 
social  affairs  and 
inclusion). 

Question 1.3.2. 

Yes. 

Relationship 
between  the  basis 
for  payment  and 
levels  of  error  in 
the  major  EU 
spending 
areas 
(common 
agricultural 
policy, 
regional 
and  urban  policy, 
employment, 
social  affairs  and 
inclusion). 

Question 2.1.1. 

Links  between  EU 
the 
in 
priorities 
context 
the 
of 
Europe 2020 
strategy,  including 
Horizon 2020,  and 
national priorities. 

For EAFRD investment, there is a link between the type of expenditure and the error rate. 

ERDF: Aid based on simplified cost options or contracts, for which contract performance must be checked, is potentially less  likely to 
result in errors than aid based on actually incurred expenditure. In many aid areas, however, aid is only possible for actually incurred 
expenditure.   Depending on the type of expenditure, there are different ways to prove expenditure and its eligibility (sales receipts, fee 
invoices, salary slips, time sheets, etc.) - this automatically results in varying susceptibilities to error/forgery. 

No. 

ESF: no direct link was found between the type of expenditure and the error rate, especially as the share of each type of expenditure in 
total expenditure depends on the type of programme and is therefore subject to variation. 

With  its  High-Tech  Strategy,  Germany  has  been  following  an  ambitious,  comprehensive  innovation  strategy  for  10  years  that  is 
continuously being further developed. Its experiences with the High-Tech Strategy were channelled into the creation of the Innovation 
Union (as one of the seven flagship initiatives of the Europe 2020 strategy) and the structure of Horizon 2020. The goal of the High-
Tech Strategy is to turn good ideas quickly into innovative products and services to ensure prosperity and quality of life in the long term. 
It  is  directed  at  overcoming  social  challenges  and  promotes  a  broad  approach  to  the  concept  of  innovation.  With  its  objectives  of 
ensuring  long-term  prosperity  and  meeting  social  needs,  the  High-Tech  Strategy  fits  in  well  with  the  priorities  of  the  Europe  2020 
strategy and the Horizon 2020 programme. 

In this context, we should also mention the European Research Area (ERA). The German Government considers further developing the 
European Research Area to be a powerful driving force for improving Europe’s overall scientific performance and its ability to innovate 
in line with the objectives of the Europe 2020 strategy. With its national ERA strategy, in 2014 Germany was the first European Member 
State to put forward a roadmap for the further development of the ERA. 

253 

 
 
 
 
One  of  the  headline  targets  for  the  Europe  2020  strategy  was  to  increase  expenditure  on  research  and  development  (R&D)  to  3 %  of 
GDP, and this remains crucial today. Germany has nearly reached this objective and has become one of the most innovative and  best-
performing countries in the world. Its high performance is one of the reasons for Germany’s successful record in obtaining funding from 
the EU’s framework research programme. 

Under  the  provisions  laid  down  in  Regulation  (EU)  1303/2013,  the  ESF  Federal  aid  strategy  was  based,  among  other  things,  on  an 
analysis of social and economic factors, the National Reform Programme, the employment policy guidelines under Article 148(2) TFEU, 
the  country-specific  recommendations  under  Article  148(4)  TFEU  laid  down  by  the  Council  for  Germany  and  existing  national  and 
regional strategies. All this influenced the intervention logic, specific objectives, aid distribution, indicators (output and result) and target 
values. However, linking EU and national priorities to ESIF projects is not enough on its own to lead to more performance orientation. 

Question 2.1.2. 

to 
synergies 

Measures 
pursue 
and 
complementarities 
ESI 
between 
Funds 
and 
national 
programmes . 

As part of the ERDF programme planning, existing European, national and regional (Land-level) aid programmes were analysed, so that 
only  measures  that  respect  the  principle  of  additionality  were  included  in  the  OP  concerned.  Appropriate  ex-ante  evaluations  were 
carried out beforehand. The thematic objectives and investment priorities are linked to Europe 2020. Consistency with other EU funding 
instruments such as Horizon 2020, LIFE and COSME, and programmes for transnational and macro-regional cooperation in Europe (e.g. 
Interreg and the EU's Baltic Sea Strategy) has also been discussed (for each OP) and it has been demonstrated that these instruments can 
complement each other. 

To  take  advantage  of  synergies  and  complementarities,  various  different  domestic  measures  continued  to  be  implemented  and  further 
developed for ESF Federal aid. 

  Adjustment of content by the Federal Government and Länder to ensure that the ESF operations are consistent in the planning 
phase of the Operational Programme; joint participation in the Federal-Länder ESF monitoring committees and regular Federal-
Länder meetings. 

  Establishing substantive synergies and complementarities in the planning phase with the AMIF and FEAD. 

  Continuing  to  ensure  clear,  established  and  substantive  separation  between  ESF  Federal  aid,  the  EAFRD  and  EMFF; 

participation in the EAFRD and EMFF monitoring committees at Federal level;  

  Discussing  possible  synergies  with  other  EU  funding  instruments  in  technical,  interdepartmental  and  Federal-Länder  working 

groups or in expert committees. 

Question 2.2.1. 

Performance 
measurement 
system  to  link  EU 
measures, 
operations 

or 

The starting point of the strategy for each ERDF Operational Programme is the increase in the Bundesland's contribution towards smart, 
sustainable  and  inclusive  growth  in  Europe  and  to  address  the  common  concerns  of  ESI  Fund  aid.  The  thematic  objectives  and 
investment priorities set by each Land have already been linked with Europe 2020. Output indicators were introduced at project level. As 
each priority axis and thus each action is part of an assessment/performance system that provides for meeting specific target values such 
as result indicators, there is an automatic link with Europe 2020 objectives. That is (basically) why no additional measuring system has 
been/will be set up. 

254 

 
 
to  EU 

projects 
priorities/Europe 
2020 
and targets. 

objectives 

Under  the  provisions  laid  down  in  Regulation  (EU)  1303/2013,  the  ESF  Federal  aid  strategy  was  based,  among  other  things,  on  an 
analysis of social and economic factors, the National Reform Programme, the employment policy guidelines under Article 148(2) TFEU, 
the  country-specific  recommendations  under  Article  148(4)  TFEU  laid  down  by  the  Council  for  Germany  and  existing  national  and 
regional strategies. All this influenced the intervention logic, specific objectives, aid distribution, indicators (output and result) and target 
values. Output and result indicators are monitored by an IT-based monitoring and control system with various data analytics functions at 
OP, programme and project level (target/actual comparisons, efficiency and target group data). There are regular controlling queries that 
include  data  delivery  on  all  common  and  programme-specific  output  indicators,  as  well  as  direct  result  indicators  at  project  level.  In 
addition,  an  external  evaluation  has  been  commissioned  to  check  whether  the  qualitative  and  quantitative  individual  and  strategic 
objectives have been achieved (particularly for long-term results) - not forgetting the contribution of the Operational Programme to the 
EU objectives. 

Question 2.2.2. 

ERDF: Setting milestones and target values for 2023 

Framework for the 
of 
management 
ESI 
in 
Funds 
order  to  achieve  a 
result-oriented 
system  and  impact 
of EU projects. 

Each  ERDF  managing  authority  –  generally  working  with  the  administrative  department  of  the  Land  –  establishes  a  coherent  set  of 
indicators based on selected thematic objectives and investment priorities, which measures whether the objectives have been achieved 
using output indicators at project level and result indicators at programme level. If necessary, the impact of the various measures can be 
measured together with external assessments. 

ESF: 

• 

Establishing the intervention logic for ESF Federal aid (specific objectives, indicators, baseline and target values); 

Setting up an IT-based monitoring and control system with various data analytics functions at OP, programme and project level 

• 
(target/actual comparisons, efficiency and target group data); 

• 
Regular ongoing controlling queries: these include data delivery on all common and programme-specific output indicators, as 
well as direct result indicators at project level. Through these regular ongoing controlling queries, all the parties involved should obtain a 
continuous overview of the implementation stage reached, facilitating the early identification of any objectives not met and, if necessary, 
the introduction of appropriate steering measures;  

• 
Commissioning  of  an  external  evaluation  to  check  whether  the  individual  and  strategic  objectives  have  been  achieved  in 
qualitative and quantitative terms (particularly for long-term results) - not forgetting the contribution of the Operational Programme to 
the EU objectives. 

Question 2.2.3. 

No. 

State 
Member 
actions  to  define 
or  improve  result 

ERDF: No result indicators are set at project level (in accordance with the relevant legal bases). Result indicators show any changes to 
the situation and regularly  measure the relative share. It is not possible to do this for individual  projects.  It  is assumed  that it  takes  a 
certain number of projects before changes become apparent and it is possible to measure them. That is why classic result indicators are 

255 

 
 
 
indicators  at  EU 
project level. 

only assessed at programme level. 

Question 2.2.4. 

Performance 
measurement 
system  to  monitor 
the 
achievement 
objectives  at  EU 
measure, 
operations 
or 
project  level  and 
to  monitor 
the 
output  and  result 
indicators  at  EU 
measure, 
operations 
project level. 

or 

ESF: No, result indicators for ESF Federal aid were set solely at programme level. In any case, project promoters generally have to give 
a  short,  concise  description  of  the  objectives  and  targets  for  each  project  in  their  grant  applications.  It  is  possible  to  produce  a 
satisfactory assessment of the success of the projects based on the intermediate and final payment request reports submitted. 

Result indicators have been set for all of the specific objectives in each ERDF OP, and they are updated at regular intervals. At project 
level, only output indicators are recorded and regularly (automatically) assessed. These audits/assessments are partially carried out by 
external evaluators. 

ESF: 

  Establishing the intervention logic for ESF Federal aid (specific objectives, indicators, baseline and target values); 

  Setting up an IT-based monitoring and control system with various data analytics functions at OP, programme and project level 

(target/actual comparisons, efficiency and target group data); 

  Regular ongoing controlling queries: these include data delivery on all common and programme-specific output indicators, as 
well as direct result indicators at project level. Through these regular ongoing controlling queries, all the parties involved should 
obtain a continuous overview of the implementation stage reached, facilitating the early identification of any objectives not met 
and, if necessary, the introduction of appropriate steering measures;  

  Commissioning  of  an  external  evaluation  to  check  whether  the  individual  and  strategic  objectives  have  been  achieved  in 
qualitative  and  quantitative  terms  (particularly  for  long-term  results)  -  not  forgetting  the  contribution  of  the  Operational 
Programme to the EU objectives. 

Question 3.1.1. 

Yes. 

for 

Framework  or  a 
system 
the 
follow-up of ECA's 
recommendations 
addressed 
to 
Member  States  in 
annual 
Court's 
and 
special 
reports. 

The  findings  and  recommendations  in  the  ECA’s  annual  and  special  reports  that  are  directed  at  Germany  in  relation  to  the  shared 
management  of  EU  budget  expenditure  will  be  officially  followed  up.  The  authorities  in  Germany  responsible  for  the  control  and 
management  of  these  funds  systematically  receive  these  reports  from  the  ministry  responsible,  for  information  purposes  and  further 
follow-up, so that all the findings in these reports are available to all those involved in the implementation and monitoring process. The 
authorities in charge of administering EU funds decide on what lessons to draw from these findings for their respective responsibilities at 
federal level.  

Moreover, the relevant federal and regional bodies regularly discuss together the most frequent sources of errors and possible remedies. 

256 

 
 
 
 
 
and 
Monitoring 
reporting 
on 
progress  achieved 
towards 
to 
implementation  of 
Court's 
recommendations 

This also includes the setting-up of thematic federal and regional working groups on the findings of the ECA that are systemic and trans-
regional in nature (e.g. the ESIF audit authority’s expert group on public procurement and State aid). In addition, the ECA’s findings are 
discussed  in  the  annual  coordination  meeting  between  the  Commission  and  German  authorities.  ECA  representatives  generally attend 
these meetings and underscore their recommendations through presentations and question and answer sessions. 

Moreover, the national authorities concerned carry out a systematic and detailed analysis of the ECA audit reports that are the basis for 
the annual report and give an in-depth opinion. Any financial corrections required are also carried out. Findings are regularly assessed by 
the managing authority or paying agency to ascertain whether they point to an individual case or failure at systemic level. Depending on 
the conclusions drawn, suitable measures are then taken. These can take the form of, for example, special workshops, correction of the 
audit trail/system description or training for the bodies and authorities concerned. 

257 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Greece 

Question 1.1.1 

FINANCIAL AUDIT COMMITTEE (EDEL) 

Main  root  causes 
in  the  major  EU 
areas 
spending 
(common 
agricultural 
policy, 
regional 
and  urban  policy, 
employment, 
social  affairs  and 
inclusion)  for  the 
persisting 
risks 
and errors pointed 
out by the ECA. 

NB: In order to develop the replies, the following non-exhaustive list of examples for 
root causes of legality and regularity errors in EU expenditure may be considered 

Not 
relevant 

Relevant 
in some 
respect 

Relevant 
in most 
respect 

Fully 
relevant 

  

  

  

  

  number and complexity of rules and gold-plating 

 

incorrect transposition of applicable EU legislation into national laws 

 

failure to observe the legal and procedural requirements stemming from 
EU and national legislation and rules 

  sufficient knowledge in applying procurement rules or State aid rules or 
other  applicable  EU  legislation  and  rules  (including  conditions  and 
eligibility  criteria  for  the  rural  development  measures,  simplified  cost 
options,  reasonableness  of  costs,  result-oriented  agri-environment 
payments) 

  

  

  complex eligibility rule 

  weaknesses  in  the  set  of  eligibility  rules  that  may  lead  to  potential  for 

circumventing them 

 

insufficient quality and up-date of the Land Parcel Identification System 
(LPIS) 

  mistakes in the aid applications 

  continued risks of misinterpretation of what is the eligible area for the 

basic payment scheme  

258 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

inefficient sanction mechanism for non-compliance or low sanction rate 
for non-compliance 

  need  of  raising  awareness,  targeted  training,  and,  development  and 
delivery  of  detailed  methodological  support  and  guidance  for  national 
and regional authorities and final beneficiaries 

  need of more or better resources and administrative capacity building 

  need  of  an  improved  quality  of  key  aspects  of  the  supervisory  and 
control  systems  (better  design  and/or  performance  of  administrative 
checks  and  on-the-spot  controls  and/or  increase  of  the  effectiveness  of 
the  work  carried  out  by  management  verifications,  audit  authorities, 
paying agencies and certification bodies) 

  better use of the information necessary to detect and correct available in 
the supporting documents, as well as at the level of the beneficiary or a 
national/regional body 

  sufficiently robust action plans developed to address both the causes of 
errors  and  the  weaknesses  in  the  management  and  control  systems 
and/or deficiencies in the EU spending 

 

insufficient  introduction  of  changes  by  new  legal  and/or  regulatory 
and/or procedural frameworks likely to have a significant impact on the 
causes of errors 

  

  need  of  more  initiatives  for  ensuring  a  genuine  simplification  for 

beneficiaries and programmes' implementation 

  

  

  

  

  knowledge and experience sharing, and dissemination of good practices 
improving  widespread 

level  on 

at  national  and/or  at  EU 
weaknesses/deficiencies/errors 

  expected  results  from  actions  that  will  not  always  be  evident  in  short-

259 

  

  

  

  

  

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
term 

ECONOMIC, SOCIAL AND TERRITORIAL COHESION’ SECTION 

NB: In order to develop the replies, the following non-exhaustive list of examples for 
root causes of legality and regularity errors in EU expenditure may be considered 

Not 
relevant 

 (OPs in the 2014-2020 NSRF which are funded by the ERDF, the ESF and the CF 
(Objective ‘Investment for growth and jobs’) 

Relevant 
in some 
respect 

Relevant 
in most 
respect 

Fully 
relevant 

  number and complexity of rules and gold-plating 

 

incorrect transposition of applicable EU legislation into national laws 

 

failure to observe the legal and procedural requirements stemming from 
EU and national legislation and rules 

  sufficient knowledge in applying procurement rules or State aid rules or 
other  applicable  EU  legislation  and  rules  (including  conditions  and 
eligibility  criteria  for  the  rural  development  measures,  simplified  cost 
options,  reasonableness  of  costs,  result-oriented  agri-environment 
payments) 

  complex eligibility rule 

  weaknesses  in  the  set  of  eligibility  rules  that  may  lead  to  potential  for 

circumventing them 

 

insufficient quality and up-date of the Land Parcel Identification System 
(LPIS) 

  mistakes in the aid applications 

  continued risks of misinterpretation of what is the eligible area for the 

basic payment scheme  

260 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

inefficient sanction mechanism for non-compliance or low sanction rate 
for non-compliance 

  need  of  raising  awareness,  targeted  training,  and,  development  and 
delivery  of  detailed  methodological  support  and  guidance  for  national 
and regional authorities and final beneficiaries 

  need of more or better resources and administrative capacity building 

  need  of  an  improved  quality  of  key  aspects  of  the  supervisory  and 
control  systems  (better  design  and/or  performance  of  administrative 
checks  and  on-the-spot  controls  and/or  increase  of  the  effectiveness  of 
the  work  carried  out  by  management  verifications,  audit  authorities, 
paying agencies and certification bodies) 

  better use of the information necessary to detect and correct available in 
the supporting documents, as well as at the level of the beneficiary or a 
national/regional body 

  sufficiently robust action plans developed to address both the causes of 
errors  and  the  weaknesses  in  the  management  and  control  systems 
and/or deficiencies in the EU spending 

 

insufficient  introduction  of  changes  by  new  legal  and/or  regulatory 
and/or procedural frameworks likely to have a significant impact on the 
causes of errors 

  need  of  more  initiatives  for  ensuring  a  genuine  simplification  for 

beneficiaries and programmes' implementation 

  knowledge and experience sharing, and dissemination of good practices 
improving  widespread 

level  on 

at  national  and/or  at  EU 
weaknesses/deficiencies/errors 

  expected  results  from  actions  that  will  not  always  be  evident  in  short-

term 

261 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
OPEKEPE – MINISTRY OF RURAL DEVELOPMENT AND FOOD, SPECIAL DEPARTMENT FOR RDP 

NB: In order to develop the replies, the following non-exhaustive list of examples for 
root causes of legality and regularity errors in EU expenditure may be considered 

Not 
relevant 

Relevant 
in some 
respect 

Relevant 
in most 
respect 

Fully 
relevant 

  number and complexity of rules and gold-plating 

 

incorrect transposition of applicable EU legislation into national laws 

 

failure to observe the legal and procedural requirements stemming from 
EU and national legislation and rules 

  sufficient knowledge in applying procurement rules or State aid rules or 
other  applicable  EU  legislation  and  rules  (including  conditions  and 
eligibility  criteria  for  the  rural  development  measures,  simplified  cost 
options,  reasonableness  of  costs,  result-oriented  agri-environment 
payments) 

  complex eligibility rule 

  weaknesses  in  the  set  of  eligibility  rules  that  may  lead  to  potential  for 

circumventing them 

 

insufficient quality and up-date of the Land Parcel Identification System 
(LPIS) 

  mistakes in the aid applications 

  continued risks of misinterpretation of what is the eligible area for the 

basic payment scheme  

262 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

inefficient sanction mechanism for non-compliance or low sanction rate 
for non-compliance 

  need  of  raising  awareness,  targeted  training,  and,  development  and 
delivery  of  detailed  methodological  support  and  guidance  for  national 
and regional authorities and final beneficiaries 

  need of more or better resources and administrative capacity building 

  need  of  an  improved  quality  of  key  aspects  of  the  supervisory  and 
control  systems  (better  design  and/or  performance  of  administrative 
checks  and  on-the-spot  controls  and/or  increase  of  the  effectiveness  of 
the  work  carried  out  by  management  verifications,  audit  authorities, 
paying agencies and certification bodies) 

  better use of the information necessary to detect and correct available in 
the supporting documents, as well as at the level of the beneficiary or a 
national/regional body 

  sufficiently robust action plans developed to address both the causes of 
errors  and  the  weaknesses  in  the  management  and  control  systems 
and/or deficiencies in the EU spending 

 

insufficient  introduction  of  changes  by  new  legal  and/or  regulatory 
and/or procedural frameworks likely to have a significant impact on the 
causes of errors 

  need  of  more  initiatives  for  ensuring  a  genuine  simplification  for 

beneficiaries and programmes' implementation 

  knowledge and experience sharing, and dissemination of good practices 
improving  widespread 

at  national  and/or  at  EU 

level  on 

263 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
weaknesses/deficiencies/errors 

  expected  results  from  actions  that  will  not  always  be  evident  in  short-

term 

ECONOMIC, SOCIAL AND TERRITORIAL COHESION’ SECTION 

For  the  2014-2020  OPs  which  are  funded  by  the  ERDF,  the  ESF  and  the  CF,  within  the  framework  of  the  objective  ‘Investment  for 
growth and jobs’, a joint management and control system (MCS) was designed and is applied.  

On the basis of the ‘selections’ made in the above table, we would like to point out the following: 

  The success of the MCS is directly affected by the EU’s regulatory framework. This was the departure point for the design and is a 
guide in its application. In the 2014-2020 programming period it is estimated that it is a sufficiently strict and complex framework 
and  this  constitutes  from  the  outset  a  risk  factor  regarding  the  possibility  of  simultaneous  coverage  of  all  applications  by  the 
management and control structures and the beneficiaries during the implementation of the OPs. 

The provision of guidance by the EU is, indeed, important. However, the interpretation of regulatory requirements and the provision 
of technical guidelines for implementing them are often perceived as additional obligations, given that they create greater security in 
terms of the checks. The EU’s guidance notes, although they do not constitute a legal basis for the checks, are often  used by the 
audit bodies (national and/or European) in order to justify cases of non-compliance with the management and control procedures in 
application. The consequence of this is the creation of regulatory over-complication (gold-plating), promoting guarantees against the 
future loss of resources.  

This fact may affect the results of the checks, since the stricter and more detailed the rules governing the MCS, the more likely it is 
that deviations and errors will be identified, with possible financial corrections.  

  With regard to eligibility rules: the complexity is mainly due to the national institutional framework governing the completion of 

works and which constitutes the essential element of eligibility.  

  Regarding sanctions mechanisms: it is considered that there are inadequate sanctions mechanisms for non-compliance in relation to 

non-public sector beneficiaries. Ineligible expenditure by these entities in the end constitutes a burden on national resources. 

  Finally,  it  is  considered  necessary  to  take  more  initiatives  and  for  there  to  be  cooperation  between  the  Commission  and  Member 

States in order to guarantee genuine simplification for beneficiaries and for the implementation of the OPs. 

264 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Question 1.1.2. 

lessons 
Main 
while 
learned 
addressing 
the 
risks  and  errors 
EU 
the 
for 
spending. 

Question 1.1.3. 

Good 
practices 
and  examples  of 
success  stories  in 
the 
of 
areas 
compliance  with 
EU  and  national 
eligibility 
rules, 
compliance  with 
EU  and  national 
public 
procurement 
legislation, 
and 
compliance  with 
State aid rules. 

  Directives  2014/24/ΕU  and  2014/25/ΕU  on  public  procurement  rules  have  been  transposed  into  Greek  law  by  Law  4412/2016. 
Since this law was promulgated in August 2016, the requisite adjustments to the management and control system for the 2014-2020 
NSRF will be made over the next year. 

  Concerning  State  aid,  a  structure/special  department  has  been  created  for  the  provision  of  guidelines  and  the  production  of 
instructions concerning how to apply the rules applicable to State aid. Within this framework, coordination is also carried out of the 
interventions being completed.    

 

In the national rules on eligibility and in the new management and control system (MCS) for the 2014-2020 OPs which are funded 
by  the  ERDF,  the  ESF  and  the  CF  (Objective  ‘Investment  for  growth  and  jobs’)  provision  has  been  made  for  the  use  of  the 
possibilities given by the new regulatory framework for the use of flat-rate cost options and their use is encouraged in all possible 
cases where they may be applied. The same rules stipulate that indirect expenditure/general expenses are eligible only in flat-rate 
form.  In  addition,  a  national  network  has  been  set  up  for  these  issues  investigating  cases  of  actions  which  may  apply  forms  of 
simplified management and preparing the documentation for them in collaboration with the relevant administrative authorities. 

Question 1.2.1. 

FINANCIAL AUDIT COMMITTEE (EDEL) 

Further  measures 
to 
the 
enhance 
effectiveness of the 
checks  carried  out 
declaring 
before 
or 
certifying 
expenditure  to  the 

During the procedure for assessing the compliance  of the design of the management  and control system (MCS), the  control  authority 
(EDEL) ascertained that there was an organised system of administrative verifications procedures. Specifically, 

1.  For  transactions  excluding  State  aid  (excluding  SA),  the  managing  authority/intermediate  body  conducts  an  administrative 

verification on each expenditure declaration sheet submitted by beneficiaries. 

2.  For transactions excluding SA, the managing authority/intermediate body conducts an on-the-spot verification when the plan is in 

full operation, with regard to both physical and financial progress. 

265 

 
 
 
Commission. 

3.  The managing authority/intermediate body conducts an administrative and an on-the-spot verification of all State aid transactions. 

4.  With regard to public procurement, the managing authority/intermediate body implements  

 

 

 

a procedure for approving the tender announcement 

a procedure for approving the assumption of a legal commitment (transactions excluding SA) 

a preliminary approval procedure for amending a legal commitment 

In addition,  

1.  Procedures have been laid down within the MCS for the efficient implementation of similar measures to combat fraud. 

2.  The IT systems are being developed in the direction of supporting users to avoid errors and enhancing the possibilities for cross-

checks on dual financing in relation to State aid. 

Within  the  framework  of  the  MCS,  the  control  authority  conducts  systems  checks  with  the  aim  of  assessing  the  operation  of  the 
administrative  bodies.  Edel  has  the  MCS  assessment  guide  and  in  cases  where  significant  deficiencies  are  identified  the  appropriate 
preventive measures are taken within the framework of action plans to improve the system and reduce the risk of errors appearing. 

ECONOMIC, SOCIAL AND TERRITORIAL COHESION’ SECTION 

The  new  management  and  control  system  for  the  2014-2020  NSRF  was  structured  on  the  basis  of  the  MCS  for  the  2007-2013 
programming period (PP) and incorporated the new requirements of EU and national law for the 2014-2020 PP. Within that framework, 
the written procedures of the MCS, which are available to all the entities involved, have been improved and strengthened significantly, 
with  the  aim  of  ensuring  sound  financial  management  of  resources.  In  particular,  for  the  efficiency  of  the  verifications  /checks 
conducted: 

The procedures for preventive checks for the ex-ante control of the legality of public procurement continue to constitute the primary tool 
for the prevention and timely detection of errors and the identification of infringements in the public procurement sector. 

With regard to administrative verifications which are conducted by the administrative authorities of the OPs on actions and beneficiaries:  

  There  is  a  close  connection  between  the  time  of  completion  of  the  verifications  and  the  drafting  and  submission  of  both  interim 

payment claims and the annual accounts and management declarations to the Commission. 

  The administrative verifications are implemented prior to the declaration of expenditure to the Commission. The on-the-spot checks, 
which  normally  operate  in  addition  to  the  administrative  verifications,  are  conducted  in  good  time,  and  in  every  case  prior  to  the 
submission of the annual accounts, and are conducted on the basis of sampling, taking into account beneficiary and action risk. 

  The procedures for administrative verifications have been significantly enhanced, placing the emphasis on the correct realisation of 

the physical subject matter, as a pre-condition for examining the eligibility of the relevant expenditure.  

The reliability of the verifications and checks is ensured through specific new procedures and actions within the framework of the MCS 

266 

 
 
(management  statement,  annual  summary  of  checks  and  verifications,  annual  accounts)  which  reflect  the  increased  accountability 
introduced into the new EU regulatory framework for management and control bodies. 

Question 1.2.2. 

FINANCIAL AUDIT COMMITTEE (EDEL) 

Further  measures 
the 
enhance 
to 
of 
effectiveness 
actions 
to  detect 
and  correct  errors 
concerning 
expenditure, which 
previously 
was 
or 
declared 
the 
to 
certified 
Commission. 

Working  towards  improving  success  in  the  identification  of  errors  in  expenditure  declared  to  the  Commission,  the  control  authority 
(Edel) is in the process of updating its methodologies and improving the quality of its control work. Specifically: 

1.  The taking of samples of transactions is planned using stratification methods with the aim of identifying errors by area (stratum) of 

expenditure.    

2.  The questionnaire for systems checks and transactions/expenditure for public procurement has been updated. The questionnaire for 
State  aid  is  to  be  updated.  The  new  questionnaires  are  based  on  detailed  checklists  and  place  special  emphasis  on  the  coding  of 
questions, on which the findings of the checks are recorded and codified accordingly. 

3.  The coding of the findings on the basis of Edel’s questionnaires will be in line with the classification of errors to be adopted by the 

Commission. The coding will significantly improve the analysis of errors and the demarcation of risk areas.  

With  regard  to  the  efficient  correction  of  errors,  in  previous  programming  periods  Edel  applied  a  system  for  imposing  financial 
corrections and recoveries of amounts unduly paid out ( 2007-2013 PP – Ministerial Decision 448/0052/4-3-2011 (Greek Government 
Gazette Β’ 686/29-4-2011)). During the present stage, Edel has prepared a draft ministerial decision for the updating of procedures to 
impose  financial  corrections.  The  aim  is  to  describe  more  clearly  the  person  responsible  for  the  error  and  the  person  liable  for  the 
recovery of sums unduly paid. In addition, within the new framework there is a clearer description of the procedure for imposing cross-
cutting corrections with the aim of reducing systemic and/or random risk to tolerable levels. 

In addition, Edel has an updated ‘Manual for the categorisation and addressing of errors and deficiencies’”. This manual gives guidelines 
to  auditors  on  the  financial  handling  of  individual  errors  and  any  indication  of  suspicions  of  systemic  errors,  so  that  errors  may  be 
demarcated in accordance with their reasons and corrections may be imposed on the person responsible.  

Additionally, Edel has a system for monitoring compliance of those audited with the auditors’ recommendations, which has stood the 
test  of  time.  Specifically,  the  findings  and  the  recommendations  are  recorded  in  Edel’s  IT  system  and  a  person  is  designated  as 
responsible for follow-up for each audit. That person assesses the action taken to comply within the period laid down.     

Finally, the check on accounts which is to be conducted by Edel will help to boost the efficiency of identifying and addressing errors on 
a timely basis, annually. Within the framework of the annual closure of accounts, Edel’s audit policy takes account, among other things, 
of the rules on net financial corrections by the Commission. 

ECONOMIC, SOCIAL AND TERRITORIAL COHESION’ SECTION 

267 

 
 
 
 
The control authority, through checks on the accounts and the evaluation of remaining error levels, carries out horizontal corrections on 
expenditure. 

Question 1.3.1. 

FINANCIAL AUDIT COMMITTEE (EDEL) 

Risk  analysis  and 
estimated  level  of 
error  in  the  major 
EU spending areas 
(common 
agricultural 
policy, 
regional 
and  urban  policy, 
employment, 
social  affairs  and 
inclusion). 

Questions (1.3.1 & 1.3.2) Within the framework of the  audit strategy, both for the current 2014-2020 programming period and for the 
previous programming period, 2007-2013, Edel developed a risk assessment method for the checks by the bodies within the joint MCS 
and  the  paying  agency.  This  method  is  implemented  and  reviewed  by  Edel  at  least  once  in  each  audit  period,  and  includes  the  risk 
analysis model of the bodies to be audited and the definition of risk areas. 

Audit risk model - definitions 

  The audit risk is the risk of Edel expressing a wrong opinion on the reliability of the joint management and control system and the 
legality and regularity of the expenditure declared. The audit risk is given by the multiplicative model in the form AR=IR*CR*DR. 
The audit risk and audit assurance, which is referred to in point 2.2, are complementary concepts. Namely, a low risk means a high 
assurance, and vice versa. The audit risk is set in advance at a low acceptable level (5 %) so that Edel can express an opinion with a 
high level of reasonable assurance.  

 

Inherent risk: the likelihood of significant error occurring in the event of internal and external control being absent.  

  Control risk: the likelihood of the internal control not identifying significant errors.  

  Detection risk: the likelihood of a significant error not being detected by the external control.  

Risk analysis model for the selection of bodies to be audited 

In each management body and in the paying agency three types of risk may be present:  

 

Inherent risk (IR). This is made up of factors such as the expenditure declared by the body to the Commission, the number of OPs in 
which  each  body  participates,  the  number  of  pillars  in  which  it  participates  and  the  number  of  sub-projects  which  are  managed 
within  the  framework  of  the  joint  management  system.  Other  inherent  risk  factors  are  the  role  of  the  body  which  is  linked  to  its 
possible  simultaneous  operation  as  both  managing  authority  and  as  intermediate  body  and  the  complexity  of  the  transactions 
managed by the body (State aid, public works, financial engineering instruments). For the paying agency in particular, this risk is at 
the highest level – level 1. 

  Control risk (CR). This is made up of factors such as the extent of amendment of the management and control system as compared 
with  the  previous  programming  period,  2007-2013,  and  the  quality  of  internal  control  arising  from  the  assessment  of  the 
fundamental requirements relating to the operation of management and control systems. 

The IR & CR risks are scored from 0 to 1, expressing the corresponding likelihoods of risk. The inherent risk (IR) and the control 
risk  (CR)  jointly  define  the  risk  of  a  significant  error  occurring  in  the  absence  of  external  control  -  RMM  (Risk  of  Material 

268 

 
 
 
Misstatement) – which is scored from 0 to 1 and is given by multiplying the IR and the CR together. 

  Detection risk (DR): This is calculated on the basis of the audit risk multiplicative model. 

Since the audit risk is given by the formula: AR= RMM*DR, the detection risk (DR) can easily be προσδιορίζεται determined for each 
body: DR=RMM/AR. We would point out that the detection risk (DR) is used to evaluate the confidence level (1-α or 1-DR) προin order 
to calculate the size of the sample of sub-project files examined during the system audit for each body (see Guidance Note on sampling 
methods for audit authorities, Unit 8.8 Sampling technique applicable to system audits, Ref: Ares(2013)682308-11.04.2013) 

The  managing  authorities and the intermediate bodies  are  classified in descending  ranking on the basis  of the risk  of occurrence  of a 
significant error and those classified as ‘riskiest’ are audited as a priority. In order to ensure that all the bodies within the joint system are 
audited at least once for all the fundamental requirements within the 2014-2020 programming period, the appropriate number of bodies 
to be audited for each audit period is determined. The bodies which are chosen and audited in one audit period do not participate in the 
selection of the sample of bodies for the three immediately following audit periods, unless it is considered desirable. In addition to the 
ranking of the bodies on the basis of the above-mentioned methodology, Edel takes into account additional risk factors for each body, 
such as: 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

any delay in carrying out the on-the-spot verifications programme, 

the observed error from Edel’s checks on transactions, 

the number of open outstanding recommendations, 

the existence of a suspicion concerning fraud in a transaction or transactions managed by the body  

the number of well-founded complaints concerning the body. 

During the annual procedure to select the bodies presenting the highest risk, care is taken to ensure that bodies are audited which manage 
expenditure both from the ERDF-CF and the ESF. In addition, there is a possibility for the audit authority to give priority to specific 
categories of bodies, if this is considered necessary. In the event that a decision is taken to give significance, for example, to the bodies 
which manage State aid or financial engineering instruments, the audit authority determines a certain minimum percentage of bodies for 
audit which belong to the above-mentioned category. We would point out that. in selecting bodies for audit. priority is given to those 
which have declared expenditure to the Commission.  

Definition of risk areas  

In addition to the selection of bodies for audit on the basis of the above-mentioned risk analysis model, a qualitative assessment is also 
carried out of risks in connection with some particular thematic sectors. In addition, risk areas are defined as a result of  the qualitative 
analysis of errors identified in Edel’s checks on transactions and system checks, respectively, and in the checks by other national and EU 
audit authorities. In addition, risk areas may emerge following a complaint. 

Question 1.3.2. 

FINANCIAL AUDIT COMMITTEE (EDEL) 

269 

 
 
Relationship 
between  the  basis 
for  payment  and 
levels  of  error  in 
the  major  EU 
spending 
areas 
(common 
agricultural 
policy, 
regional 
and  urban  policy, 
employment, 
social  affairs  and 
inclusion). 

Yes. 

Questions 1.3.1 & 1.3.2) Within the framework of the audit strategy, both for the current 2014-2020 programming period  and for the 
previous programming period, 2007-2013, Edel developed a risk assessment method for the checks by the bodies within the joint MCS 
and  the  paying  agency.  This  method  is  implemented  and  reviewed  by  Edel  at  least  once  in  each  audit  period,  and  includes  the  risk 
analysis model of the bodies to be audited and the definition of risk areas. 

Audit risk model - definitions 

  The audit risk is the risk of Edel expressing a wrong opinion on the reliability of the joint management and control system and the 
legality and regularity of the expenditure declared. The audit risk is given by the multiplicative model in the form AR=IR*CR*DR. 
The audit risk and audit assurance, which is referred to in point 2.2, are complementary concepts. Namely, a low risk means a high 
assurance, and vice versa. The audit risk is set in advance at a low acceptable level (5 %) so that Edel can express an opinion with a 
high level of reasonable assurance.  

 

Inherent risk: the likelihood of significant error occurring in the event of internal and external control being absent.  

  Control risk: the likelihood of the internal control not identifying significant errors.  

  Detection risk: the likelihood of a significant error not being detected by the external control.  

Risk analysis model for the selection of bodies to be audited 

In each management body and in the paying agency three types of risk may be present:  

 

Inherent risk (IR). This is made up of factors such as the expenditure declared by the body to the Commission, the number of OPs in 
which  each  body  participates,  the  number  of  pillars  in  which  it  participates  and  the  number  of  sub-projects  which  are  managed 
within  the  framework  of  the  joint  management  system.  Other  inherent  risk  factors  are  the  role  of  the  body  which  is  linked  to  its 
possible  simultaneous  operation  as  both  managing  authority  and  as  intermediate  body  and  the  complexity  of  the  transactions 
managed by the body (State aid, public works, financial engineering instruments). For the paying agency in particular, this risk is at 
the highest level – level 1. 

  Control risk (CR). This is made up of factors such as the extent of amendment of the management and control system as compared 
with  the  previous  programming  period,  2007-2013,  and  the  quality  of  internal  control  arising  from  the  assessment  of  the 
fundamental requirements relating to the operation of management and control systems. 

The IR & CR risks are scored from 0 to 1, expressing the corresponding likelihoods of risk. The inherent risk (IR) and the control 
risk  (CR)  jointly  define  the  risk  of  a  significant  error  occurring  in  the  absence  of  external  control  -  RMM  (Risk  of  Material 
Misstatement) – which is scored from 0 to 1 and is given by multiplying the IR and the CR together. 

  Detection risk (DR): This is calculated on the basis of the audit risk multiplicative model. 

Since the audit risk is given by the formula: AR= RMM*DR, the detection risk (DR) can easily be προσδιορίζεται determined for each 

270 

 
 
body: DR=RMM/AR. We would point out that the detection risk (DR) is used to evaluate the confidence level (1-α or 1-DR) προin order 
to calculate the size of the sample of sub-project files examined during the system audit for each body (see Guidance Note on sampling 
methods for audit authorities, Unit 8.8 Sampling technique applicable to system audits, Ref: Ares(2013)682308-11.04.2013) 

The  managing  authorities and the intermediate  bodies  are  classified  in descending  ranking on the basis  of the risk  of occurrence  of a 
significant error and those classified as ‘riskiest’ are audited as a priority. In order to ensure that all the bodies within the joint system are 
audited at least once for all the fundamental requirements within the 2014-2020 programming period, the appropriate number of bodies 
to be audited for each audit period is determined. The bodies which are chosen and audited in one audit period do not participate in the 
selection of the sample of bodies for the three immediately following audit periods, unless it is considered desirable. In addition  to the 
ranking of the bodies on the basis of the above-mentioned methodology, Edel takes into account additional risk factors for each body, 
such as: 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

any delay in carrying out the on-the-spot verifications programme, 

the observed error from Edel’s checks on transactions, 

the number of open outstanding recommendations, 

the existence of a suspicion concerning fraud in a transaction or transactions managed by the body  

the number of well-founded complaints concerning the body. 

During the annual procedure to select the bodies presenting the highest risk, care is taken to ensure that bodies are audited which manage 
expenditure both from the ERDF-CF and the ESF. In addition, there is a possibility for the audit authority to give priority to specific 
categories of bodies, if this is considered necessary. In the event that a decision is taken to give significance, for example, to the bodies 
which manage State aid or financial engineering instruments, the audit authority determines a certain minimum percentage of bodies for 
audit which belong to the above-mentioned category. We would point out that. in selecting bodies for audit. priority is given to those 
which have declared expenditure to the Commission.  

Definition of risk areas  

In addition to the selection of bodies for audit on the basis of the above-mentioned risk analysis model, a qualitative assessment is also 
carried out of risks in connection with some particular thematic sectors. In addition, risk areas are defined as a result of the qualitative 
analysis of errors identified in Edel’s checks on transactions and system checks, respectively, and in the checks by other national and EU 
audit authorities. In addition, risk areas may emerge following a complaint. 

Question 2.1.1. 

ECONOMIC, SOCIAL AND TERRITORIAL COHESION’ SECTION 

Links  between  EU 
in 
the 
priorities 
context 
the 
of 
Europe 2020 

Within the context of the Europe 2020 strategy, the Commission adopted the flagship initiative for the creation of an ‘Innovation Union’, 
with the aim of improving Europe’s capacity to achieve smart, sustainable and inclusive growth with simultaneous bridging of the divide 
between science and the market, so that the results of research are converted into new products and services. Within the framework of 
this initiative the concept of the Research and Innovation Strategy for Smart Specialisation (RIS3) stands out, so that the nation as well 

271 

 
 
strategy,  including 
Horizon 2020,  and 
national priorities. 

as every region focuses on improving specific categories of investment which will give the economy a competitive advantage. 

On  the  basis  of  the  above  and  in  application  of  ‘entrepreneurial  discovery’  procedures,  smart  specialisation  strategies  have  been 
developed at national and regional levels with significant participation by representatives of the quadruple helix. Through the productive 
dialogue which was developed between the representatives, which will be maintained until the end of the programming period, financial 
actions were identified which will be enhanced by the NSRF, with the assistance of research and innovation, so that they evolve into 
high  added-value  activities  in  order  to  lead  to  smart,  sustainable  and  inclusive  growth,  contributing  to  the  aims  of  the  Europe  2020 
strategy and to enhancing cooperation between European and national policies. The European dimension was one of the factors that was 
particularly taken into account in developing the priorities of the national RIS3 strategies. 

In  order  to  strengthen  economic  activities  more  successfully,  there  was  a  reorganisation  of  the  procedures  for  completing  research 
projects. Specifically, assessment criteria were adopted which will be used up to 2020: 

  Results and Effects of the proposed plan (Impact) 

  Scientific and technical standard of the proposed project (Excellence) 

  Experience  and  reliability  of  the  beneficiary/beneficiaries  and  quality  and  adequacy  of  the  method  for  carrying  out  the  project 

(Implementation) 

and  the  entire  projects  management  procedure  was  computerised,  from  the  submission  of  proposals  to  the  completion  of  projects.  In 
addition, specifically for information and communication technologies, which have a horizontal aspect in that they affect most if not all 
other  sectors  of  the  economy,  the  analysis/categorisation  was  adopted  which  is  described  in  the  Horizon  2020  programme,  with 
identification of the technologies which are of interest for Greece. 

With  regard  to  research  infrastructure,  as  typically  pointed  out  in  the  flagship  initiative  ‘Innovation  Union’  within  the  Europe  2020 
policy, research infrastructure is synonymous with investment in the future, and investments in research infrastructure must be based on 
long-term planning and sound foundations of scientific and strategic priorities in order to guarantee the enhancement of existing research 
infrastructure of national importance as well as the development of new infrastructure, where required, as a priority in conjunction with 
the smart specialisation strategy and the European Strategy Forum on Research Infrastructures (ESFRI) Roadmap, creating an attractive 
environment for research and development through the lens of international cooperation and the promotion of excellence. 

In  December  2014  the  Secretariat-General  for  Research  and  Technology  (SGRT)  announced  the  national  strategy  and  the  national 
roadmap  for  research  infrastructure,  comprising  26  national  research  infrastructure  units,  with  a  specific  regional  dimension  and 
significant interlinking with European and global infrastructure for research and innovation. At  the end of November 2016 a reform to 
the roadmap is expected, which will be fully in line with the national RIS3 strategy, including research infrastructure that will assist all 
the nation’s priority sectors. 

Question 2.1.2. 

ECONOMIC, SOCIAL AND TERRITORIAL COHESION’ SECTION 

Measures 

to 

The national RIS3 strategy supports the European innovation strategy named ‘Innovation Union’, contributes to the strengthening of the 

272 

 
 
synergies 

pursue 
and 
complementarities 
ESI 
between 
Funds 
and 
national 
programmes . 

European Research Area and develops synergies with Horizon 2020, through supporting:  

  Candidates which have a seal of excellence in actions such as the SMEs Instrument, the ERC and joint actions with COSME. 

  European priorities which are consistent with national priorities, and the facilitation of participation by the country in international 
joint actions such as the ERA-nets, joint programming initiatives (JPIs) in collaboration with the policies and actions of other jointly 
responsible  ministries,  joint  actions  with  industry  and  other  Member  States  (e.g.  joint  technological  initiatives  /  Jus, 
Eureka/Eurostars), and the knowledge innovation communities (KICs) of the European Institute for Innovation and Technology. 

  European infrastructure in the ESFRI roadmap through the national roadmap of research infrastructure. 

Question 2.2.1. 

ECONOMIC, SOCIAL AND TERRITORIAL COHESION’ SECTION 

Performance 
measurement 
system  to  link  EU 
measures, 
operations 
projects 
priorities/Europe 
2020 
and targets. 

or 
to  EU 

objectives 

We consider that a link between EU measures, actions or projects and the priorities of the EU / the aims and targets of the Europe 2020 
strategy has already been achieved, since the programmes were drawn up on the basis of the regulations for the 2014-2020 programming 
period, where the priorities of Europe 2020 are reflected in the framework of the thematic aims, which have clearly been incorporated 
into the Ops. At the same time, the linking was guaranteed through procedures to harmonise the Community acquis and the inflexible 
delays arising from the directives. The link  was strengthened  within the framework of developing  the intervention  philosophy  for the 
programmes. 

Performance evaluation concerning the aims of the Europe 2020 strategy will take place on the basis of the indicators which have been 
laid  down  in  the  NSRF  2014-2020  partnership  agreement,  and  will  be  published  in  the  annual  reports  for  the  2017  and  2019 
programmes,  and  in  the  partnership  agreement’s  progress  reports.  The  performance  evaluation  methodology  is  currently  being 
developed. 

Question 2.2.2. 

ECONOMIC, SOCIAL AND TERRITORIAL COHESION’ SECTION 

Framework for the 
management 
of 
in 
Funds 
ESI 
order  to  achieve  a 
result-oriented 
system  and  impact 
of EU projects. 

During the process of planning the programmes, a working group was formed at national level to draft the uniform system of indicators 
for  the  NSRF  2014-2020  for  the  ERDF,  ESF  and  CF  and  to  coordinate  with  the  EAFRD  and  the  EMFF.  The  working  group  issued 
guidelines  and  drafted  instructions  in  order  to  support  the  departments  involved  in  drafting  the  2014-2020  OPs  to  develop  the 
intervention  philosophy  and  to  choose  suitable  output  and  results  indicators.  Within  this  framework,  the  working  group  laid  down  a 
specific timetable and procedures so that the programmes would clearly publish the intervention philosophy and in order for there to be a 
greater focus on results.  

In addition, within the framework of the uniform system a unit is being developed with the requirements for effective monitoring of the 
indicators and coverage of all reporting requirements within the framework of the European structural and investment funds. 

In order to achieve results, a key aim is the fulfilment of the ex-ante conditionalities. Addressing these is at the core of cooperation with 
all the departments responsible or involved.  For the requirements  regular information  a report is drawn  up,  which highlights  in detail 
progress on the basis of the actions plans that have been incorporated into specific OPs.  

273 

 
 
The  actual  impact  of  the  work  carried  out  will  be  evaluated  by  the  impact  assessments  to  be  carried  out  after  the  actions  have  been 
completed. 

For the EAFRD, the Commission has laid down a specific system of indicators for progress monitoring and impact assessment. 

Question 2.2.3. 

ECONOMIC, SOCIAL AND TERRITORIAL COHESION’ SECTION 

State 
Member 
actions  to  define 
or  improve  result 
indicators  at  EU 
project level. 

In the regulation of joint provisions there is no legal requirement imposed on the Member States to lay down indicators of results at the 
project  level.  On  the  basis  of  the  Commission’s  new  definition  of  impact  and  given  that  there  is  no  linear  relationship  or  clear  link 
between each project and one results indicator, the definition of results indicators at project level is not considered to be good practice. 
The project’s contribution to achieving the aims set will be assessed  when the impact assessments are conducted.  However, since  for 
certain results indicators, because of their nature (e.g. journey time), the aim achieved was directly related to the particular aim, it has 
been decided that in the project’s technical sheet there can be the possibility for the final beneficiary to define a target  price at project 
level for the results indicator. 

Exceptions are the ECF’s direct effect indicators, where by definition the indicators laid down for the Social Fund within the framework 
of the regulations by the Commission directly link the result with the project carried out. 

Question 2.2.4. 

ECONOMIC, SOCIAL AND TERRITORIAL COHESION’ SECTION 

Performance 
measurement 
system  to  monitor 
the 
achievement 
objectives  at  EU 
measure, 
operations 
or 
project  level  and 
the 
to  monitor 
output  and  result 
indicators  at  EU 
measure, 
operations 
project level. 

or 

The  monitoring  of  attainment  of  the  aims  at  project  level  has  been  laid  down  within  the  framework  of  the  management  and  control 
system, through the use of standardised documents, which exist and are kept in electronic form within the integrated information system. 
At project level there is information on the setting of objectives and progress in achieving objectives in the action datasheet, the monthly 
expenditure  declaration  sheet  and  the main  instruments,  which  are  the  indicator  achievement  sheet  and the  administrative  verification 
sheet  for  indicator  achievement.  The  monitoring  of  attainment  of  the  aims  is  the  responsibility  of  the  managing  authorities  of  the 
operational  programmes,  the  procedure  is  coordinated  by  the  national  coordination  authority  for  the  NSRF  and  it  is  published  in  the 
implementation  reports  which  are  submitted  annually  to  the  Commission.  Within  the  framework  of  the  system  for  measuring  impact, 
particular  attention  has  been  paid  to  the  monitoring  of  the  impact  framework,  and  to  providing  information  to  the  beneficiaries 
(information that is appropriate to the invitation, detailed and well-considered indicator ID sheets) in order to ensure a procedure for the 
accurate measurement of indicators and the correct completion of all the forms and references. 

The monitoring of the output and results indicators in the responsibility of the managing authorities of the operational programmes, the 
procedure is coordinated by the national coordination authority for the NSRF and it is published in the implementation reports which are 
submitted annually to the Commission. 

Question 3.1.1. 

FINANCIAL AUDIT COMMITTEE (EDEL) 

Framework  or  a 
the 
system 

for 

Yes. 

On the basis of Presidential Decree No 111/29.08.2014 the audit authority (Edel) (body within the Ministry of the Economy) monitors 

274 

 
 
the checks by the European Commission, the European Court of Auditors and other European bodies. With regard to the checks by the 
European Court of Auditors, Edel has a database in which the findings and recommendations are recorded. A person is designated as 
responsible for monitoring each recommendation, and that person coordinates the framework of recommendations for the improvement 
and compliance of the management and control system. 

follow-up of ECA's 
recommendations 
to 
addressed 
Member  States  in 
annual 
Court's 
and 
special 
reports. 
and 
Monitoring 
reporting 
on 
progress  achieved 
to 
towards 
implementation  of 
Court's 
recommendations 

275 

 
 
 
 
 
Hungary 

Question 1.1.1 

Main  root  causes 
in  the  major  EU 
areas 
spending 
(common 
agricultural 
policy, 
regional 
and  urban  policy, 
employment, 
social  affairs  and 
inclusion)  for  the 
persisting 
risks 
and errors pointed 
out by the ECA. 

NB: In order to develop the replies, the following non-exhaustive list of examples for 
root causes of legality and regularity errors in EU expenditure may be considered 

Not 
relevant 

Relevant 
in some 
respect 

Relevant 
in most 
respect 

Fully 
relevant 

  number and complexity of rules and gold-plating 

 

incorrect transposition of applicable EU legislation into national laws 

 

failure to observe the legal and procedural requirements stemming from 
EU and national legislation and rules 

  sufficient knowledge in applying procurement rules or State aid rules or 
other  applicable  EU  legislation  and  rules  (including  conditions  and 
eligibility  criteria  for  the  rural  development  measures,  simplified  cost 
options,  reasonableness  of  costs,  result-oriented  agri-environment 
payments) 

  complex eligibility rule 

  weaknesses  in  the  set  of  eligibility  rules  that  may  lead  to  potential  for 

circumventing them 

 

insufficient quality and up-date of the Land Parcel Identification System 
(LPIS) 

  mistakes in the aid applications 

  continued risks of misinterpretation of what is the eligible area for the 

basic payment scheme  

276 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

inefficient sanction mechanism for non-compliance or low sanction rate 
for non-compliance 

  need  of  raising  awareness,  targeted  training,  and,  development  and 
delivery  of  detailed  methodological  support  and  guidance  for  national 
and regional authorities and final beneficiaries 

  need of more or better resources and administrative capacity building 

  need  of  an  improved  quality  of  key  aspects  of  the  supervisory  and 
control  systems  (better  design  and/or  performance  of  administrative 
checks  and  on-the-spot  controls  and/or  increase  of  the  effectiveness  of 
the  work  carried  out  by  management  verifications,  audit  authorities, 
paying agencies and certification bodies) 

  better use of the information necessary to detect and correct available in 
the supporting documents, as well as at the level of the beneficiary or a 
national/regional body 

  sufficiently robust action plans developed to address both the causes of 
errors  and  the  weaknesses  in  the  management  and  control  systems 
and/or deficiencies in the EU spending 

 

insufficient  introduction  of  changes  by  new  legal  and/or  regulatory 
and/or procedural frameworks likely to have a significant impact on the 
causes of errors 

  need  of  more  initiatives  for  ensuring  a  genuine  simplification  for 

beneficiaries and programmes' implementation 

  knowledge and experience sharing, and dissemination of good practices 
improving  widespread 

at  national  and/or  at  EU 

level  on 

277 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
weaknesses/deficiencies/errors 

  expected  results  from  actions  that  will  not  always  be  evident  in  short-

term 

Question 1.1.2. 

lessons 
Main 
while 
learned 
addressing 
the 
risks  and  errors 
for 
EU 
the 
spending. 

Based on the comments and recommendations made during the (internal and external) audits, we are continuously improving the system 
and aim to minimise risks. For the purposes of avoiding and ending the risks and errors set out in point 1.1.1, ongoing communication 
between the Member State and the EU is important, just as the development and application of publications and guides that help provide 
a uniform interpretation, which should be made available to applicants and beneficiaries. 

Based on the restructuring of the institution system carried out in 2014, the Public Procurement Supervision Department (PPSD) of the 
Prime Minister’s Office is the Hungarian body performing the horizontal control of public procurement procedures financed from EU 
funds.  Its  work  was  subjected  to  a  horizontal  audit  performed  by  the  Commission  in  2014  and  2015.  As  a  result  of  the  audit,  the 
Commission  established  that  the  “management  and  control  system”  of  the  involved  operational  programmes  “works,  but  certain 
improvements are required (category 2)”. According to the Commission, the PPSD filters out a large number of possible irregularities. 
As a general comment, the Commission requests the PPSD to continue this process, to take an active role in ensuring open, fair, and 
transparent  competition,  and  to  especially  emphasize  the  cost-benefit  ratio.  According  to  the  Commission,  action  against  potential 
irregularities  during  controls  are  necessary  especially  in  the  following  areas:  the  application  of  discriminatory  or  disproportionate 
conditions for selection, directly granting contracts based on reasons not in line with directives, and incorrectly shortened deadlines for 
submitting  proposals.  Based  on  the  above,  the  Hungarian  authorities  have  taken  the  necessary  measures,  e.g.  a  ministerial 
communication  was  published  in  December 2014  that  decreased  the  number  or  reduced  the  scope  of  the  objectionable  selection 
conditions  pertaining  to  references,  experts,  financial  data,  and  machinery.  The  PPSD  also  integrated  the  factors  requested  by  the 
Commission  into  the  control  measures  it  implements  and  published  numerous  guides/guidelines  on  the  palyazat.gov.hu  website  to 
inform beneficiaries of good practices.  

It is important to ensure that persons deciding on aid be aware of the applicable State aid rules and of the conditions that the EU State aid 
legislation expects to be met. Including questions on whether the conditions for State aid are met in the application form for aid could 
help, while developing State aid guidelines could help the work of decision-makers. 

In 2015, the Directorate General for Audit of European Funds (DGAEF) performed a system audit of State aid rules, which included an 
examination of whether all draft calls for proposals were submitted to the minister responsible for examining State aid as regards EU 
competitiveness (State Aid Monitoring Office, SAMO) prior to the announcement of the respective calls for proposals, in accordance 
with Article 17(1) of Government Decree 37/2011 of 22 March on the procedure relating to state aid within the meaning of European 
Union competition law and the regional aid maps. It was established on the basis of the calls for proposals published in the reviewed 
period and of the SAMO positions available to the audit that, in accordance with Government Decree 37/2011 of 22 March, the parties 

278 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
providing  aid  ensured  that  SAMO  positions  were  requested.  The  acquisition  of  SAMO  positions  is  a  priority  requirement  before 
publishing calls for proposals.   

In the interest of managing the risks and errors identified by the audit authority, the audited parties had to put suitable measures in place 
and inform the audit authority thereof by way of reports. On the basis of these reports, the audit authority monitors the recommended 
proposals.  The  results  are  included  in  the  annual  audit  reports  and  the  system  audit  reports  for  the  following  year.  In  summary,  the 
majority of the above proposals were implemented.  

Question 1.1.3. 

Good 
practices 
and  examples  of 
success  stories  in 
the 
of 
areas 
compliance  with 
EU  and  national 
eligibility 
rules, 
compliance  with 
EU  and  national 
public 
procurement 
legislation, 
and 
compliance  with 
State aid rules. 

The Prime Minister’s Office, as the coordinating body, prepared a methodology guideline for the settlement of the lump sum and the 
average costs based on it in the 2014-2020 period. Consultation was held with the Managing Authority and the audit authority on the 
guideline. In the 2014-2020 calls for proposals, the Managing Authorities devoted special attention to applying the simplified settlement 
guidelines as far as possible.  

In the 2014-2020 period, the percentage values of the various indirect costs were limited in the national guideline for eligible costs, e.g. 
for project preparation, project management, etc. 

During  the  use  of  the  EU  aid  provided  in  the  present  2014-2020  programming  period,  the  Prime  Minister’s  Office  developed  a 
methodology guideline on behalf of Managing Authorities for examining  the conformity of eligible costs to market  prices, to thereby 
increase the effectiveness of audits. The guideline is generally applicable and presents specific methods in order to develop a unified and 
effective  approach  for  Managing Authorities.  Once  the  additional  proposals  made  by  the  audit  authority  during  its  2016  system  audit 
have been processed, the methodology guideline will significantly aid in examining compliance with market prices. 

In  accordance  with  point  2.3  of  the  Hungarian  Partnership  Agreement  concluded  by  the  European  Commission  and  the  Hungarian 
Government in September 2014, a detailed Public Procurement Action Plan has been drawn up in consultation with the Commission, in 
the interest of fulfilling the applicable ex ante conditionalities set out in Annex XI, Part II, point 4 of Regulation (EU) No 1303/2013 of 
the European Parliament and of the Council. The Action Plan included the following measures: 

 

in  the  interest  of  informing  Beneficiaries,  summaries  and  public  procurement  sample  documents  regarding  the  requirements 
the 
audit 
validated 
https://www.palyazat.gov.hu/kozbeszerzesi_segedanyagok website, 

Prime  Minister’s  Office’s 

PPSD  were  made 

public 

the 

the 

by 

on 

of 

279 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 

the Prime Minister’s Office held and participated in numerous conferences to inform Beneficiaries, 

the  communication  of  the  Minister  heading  the  Prime  Minister’s  Office  published  on  2 December  2014  limited  the  selection 
criteria  that  can  be  set  regarding  revenue,  references,  experts,  and  machines/equipment,  and  also  introduced  the  obligation  of 
accepting technically equivalent references.  

One of the  most  important  measures and  most  significant results in  implementing  the Action Plan was  the  passing of the new Public 
Procurement  Act  and  its  entry  into  force  on  1 November  2015.  By  passing  the  new  Public  Procurement  Act  and  its  implementing 
regulations, Hungary was the first of the EU Member States to transpose all three of the new EU public procurement directives. These 
pieces of legislation were the result of wide social dialogue. By passing the new Public Procurement Act and the related implementing 
decrees, a total of 7 measures undertaken in Action Plans were implemented before the deadline of 31 December 2015. The enactment of 
the new Public Procurement Act set out the above limitations on sales revenue and reference requirements in law. Numerous measures of 
the new legislation also serve to take competition to another level and increase transparency in Hungarian public procurement. 

Managing Authorities receive continuous training in the field of State aid; by way of the State aid publication available on the internet 
and on its website, the State Aid Monitoring Office (Hungary’s central body responsible for adherence to EU State aid rules)  provides 
information on changes in the rules pertaining to EU State aid. “State aid panels” were developed to facilitate the announcement of calls 
for proposals. Thus, if the Managing Authority has decided on the applicable aid category, it can automatically insert the applicable rules 
in the call for proposals. A separate chapter in the aid requests deals with adherence to State aid rules in the interest of filtering out non-
conforming  projects  as  early  on  as  possible.  In  addition,  the  SAMO  inspects  the  contents  of  all  calls  for  tenders  before  they  are 
announced; if the text changes, the inspection has to be repeated. 

The Managing Authorities perform fraud risk assessment every year, in accordance with Commission guidelines. Based on experiences 
gained thus far, the Audit Authority continuously increased the size of the audited sample, in accordance with the expectations of the 
European Commission. 

Question 1.2.1. 

Further  measures 
the 
enhance 
to 
effectiveness of the 
checks  carried  out 
before 
declaring 
certifying 
or 
expenditure  to  the 
Commission. 

Question 1.2.2. 

A special function was created and put in operation in Hungary’s IT system to prevent fraud and ease risk assessment.  

Further  measures 

To effectively uncover errors, the Directorate General for Audit of European Funds continuously monitors the audits performed by the 

280 

 
 
 
 
 
the 
to 
enhance 
of 
effectiveness 
to  detect 
actions 
and  correct  errors 
concerning 
expenditure, which 
previously 
was 
or 
declared 
certified 
the 
to 
Commission. 

Question 1.3.1. 

Risk  analysis  and 
estimated  level  of 
error  in  the  major 
EU spending areas 
(common 
agricultural 
policy, 
regional 
and  urban  policy, 
employment, 
social  affairs  and 
inclusion). 

European Commission and the ECA as well as the guidelines issued by the Commission. Based on the above, the efficiency-increasing 
factors were integrated after our auditing methodology was reviewed. 

The wider application of simplified cost options could be a step forward in the area of errors characteristic of cohesion policy. Hungary 
is devoted to expanding the use of SCOs. 

The findings of audit bodies are taken into consideration when developing rules pertaining to first level control and audit lists; they are 
also integrated into the trainings help for employees. 

Every year in the 2014-2020 period, the Managing Authorities had to draw up summaries on the first level controls performed in the 
various financial years. This annual summary will contain an analysis of the uncovered irregularities and the corrective measures. 

As regards CAP, the ratio of error is continuously monitored: if it exceeds 2 %, measures are implemented to decrease their level. The 
control and monitoring of measures is continuous, with regular feedback provided to the Commission on their fulfilment or integration 
into the process.  

Question 1.3.2. 

No. 

In cohesion policy, expectations regarding results have to be met, which requires a completely different approach. 

No relationship between the error level and the payment bases can be proven in the area of the CAP.  

Relationship 
between  the  basis 
for  payment  and 
levels  of  error  in 
the  major  EU 
spending 
areas 
(common 
agricultural 
policy, 
regional 
and  urban  policy, 
employment, 

281 

 
 
 
 
 
social  affairs  and 
inclusion). 

Question 2.1.1. 

Links  between  EU 
in 
the 
priorities 
context 
the 
of 
Europe 2020 
strategy,  including 
Horizon 2020,  and 
national priorities. 

Question 2.1.2. 

to 
synergies 

Measures 
pursue 
and 
complementarities 
ESI 
between 
Funds 
and 
national 
programmes . 

The  domestic  S3  three  national  specialisation  is  in  line  with  the  three  H2020  pillars:  research  with  a  system  approach  -  exceptional 
science,  intelligence  manufacturing  -  leading  industrial  role,  sustainable  society  -  societal  challenges.  This  harmony  promotes  a 
performance, quality, and result oriented approach, competition, and specialisation in uncovered market niches. 

In  the  case  of  proposals  entitled  “Supporting  the  R+D+I  activities  of  undertakings”,  financed  from  the  Economic  Development  and 
Innovation Operational Programme (GINOP) (for applicants outside of Budapest and Pest County) and the Competitive Central Hungary 
Operational Programme (VEKOP) (for applicants in Budapest or Pest County), undertakings not financed in the calls for proposals of 
the Horizon 2020 framework programme that received a Seal of Excellence were awarded additional points in their evaluation.   

Complementarities  and  synergies  are  validated  by  means  of  the  programme  portfolio  of  the  National  Research,  Development  and 
Innovation  Fund  (NRDI  Fund),  financed  by  Hungary.  This  fund  is  partly  used  to  supplement  the  Central  Hungary  region  Research, 
Development and Innovation Fund (GINOP) calls for proposals that received less funding from the ESBA. The Fund is also a source for 
programmes  that  are  difficult  or  impossible  to  finance  from  OP  sources.  These  latter  are  generally  special  basic  research  tenders  and 
plans that help participation in international tenders. 

The NRDI Fund is used to finance competitive tenders that were awarded the highest number of points in the Horizon 2020 framework 
programme but did not receive funding from due to the insufficiency of funds: 

 

 

“Horizon 2020  SME  development  tool  tender  (SME_15)”,  which  aims  to  provide  aid  to  those  small  and  medium-sized 
enterprises that were deemed to reach  the technical threshold in the  international  evaluation of phase 1  of the Horizon 2020’s 
SME development tool announced by the European Union, but did not receive aid due to a lack of funds; 

“Call for proposals related to the tender announced for domestic aid linked to the European Research Council (ERC) tender for 
researchers”, which promotes the implementation of the research programme in Hungary, the professional development of the 
applicant, and subsequent successful tendering in aid schemes announced by the ERC by supporting researchers and their host 
institutions who/that participated in the aid schemes announced by the ERC (Starting Grant (StG), Consolidator Grant (CoG), 
and Advanced Grant (AdG)), where they were found to be of high quality by the international jury and made it to the second 

282 

 
 
 
 
 
round but were not awarded aid. 

 

“Call for proposals for gaining experience at a research group supported by the ERC”, which aims to promote the even more 
successful applications of researchers in aid schemes announced by the ERC (Starting Grant (StG), Consolidator Grant (CoG), 
and Advanced Grant (AdG)), thus increasing the amount of ERC aid received by Hungary and the international recognition of 
Hungarian  researchers  and  research  institutions.  The  call  for  proposals  provides  a  possibility  for  researchers  in  a  legal 
relationship with a Hungarian research institution to spend three months with a research group that is led by an StG, CoG, or 
AdG winner in the interest of doing research work and gaining experience. This allows researchers to gain hands-on experience 
on  how  to  compile  a  successful  ERC  application,  lead  a  research  team  supported  by  the  ERC,  and  submit  a  successful  ERC 
application after they return home.  

All  Operational  Programmes  were  planned  by  taking  into  account  the  targets  set  out  in  the  common  EU  Regulations  on  the 
implementation of the various funds; all OPs were also approved by the European Commission. 

Hungary’s institutional system plans, implements, and tracks the various actions by taking into consideration the developed common EU 
performance  framework.  The  preparation  of  the  annual  implementation  reports  to  be  submitted  the  Commission,  thus  the  2019 
implementation  report  which  indicates  compliance  with  the  performance  framework,  is  performed  in  close  cooperation  with  the 
Managing Authorities and the central monitoring unit. The absorption table prepared by the Monitoring and Evaluation Department in 
cooperation with the Managing Authorities presents the financial development and developments in indicators in the 2014-2020 period; 
the  table  compares  absorption  development  with  the  meeting  of  indicators  to  enable  timely  interventions  (with  a  focus  on  the  per 
framework, performance reserve, and the meeting of 2018 targets). 

A policy commenting system was set up for the research, development and innovation projects, which includes anonymous experts to 
reach targets by comparing projects. To provide a connection with the targets of the EU H2020 programme, GINOP’s result indicators 
include the number of successful Hungarian participants in the Horizon 2020 framework. 

The  Annual  Development  Framework  (ADF),  manifest  in  the  form  of  a  government  decree,  was  integrated  into  the  institution’s 
procedural  order.  For  every  single  operational  programme,  the  annual  development  framework  designates  the  main  nodes  of 
implementation  (e.g.  envelopes,  justification,  method  and  time  of  advertisement,  possible  applicants,  eligible  activities,  situation 
assessment,  intervention  logic,  planned  indicators  and  their  target  values,  technical  expectations).   The  absorption  table  mentioned 
above, which compares absorption development with the meeting of indicators to enable timely interventions, strengthens the success-
oriented approach. 

Question 2.2.1. 

Performance 
measurement 
system  to  link  EU 
measures, 
operations 
projects 
priorities/Europe 
2020 
and targets. 

or 
to  EU 

objectives 

Question 2.2.2. 

Framework for the 
of 
management 
in 
Funds 
ESI 
order  to  achieve  a 
result-oriented 
system  and  impact 
of EU projects. 

Question 2.2.3. 

Yes. 

283 

 
 
 
Member 
State 
actions  to  define 
or  improve  result 
indicators  at  EU 
project level. 

The  factors  applicable  to  the  creation,  quality  assurance,  and  performance  tracking  of  indicators  have  been  set  out  in  a  government 
decree.  

Among others, the government decree sets the following requirements for calls for proposals: 

- they are to contain at least one indicator included in the programme. 

- they are to contain common indicators relevant to the given call for proposal. 

- they are to contain only the indicators that are essential for measuring progress, and only in a justified amount. 

The minister responsible for the use of EU funds is responsible for creating, in cooperation with the involved Managing Authority, the 
indicators in a monitoring and information system. 

The compulsory elements of the grant agreement are indicators, their target values and deadlines, and the clear, traceable definition of 
the  horizontal  requirements  applicable  to  the  project.  Government  Decree 272/2014  also  provides  clear  instruction  on  monitoring  the 
fulfilment of and the tasks of indicator milestones. Such measures include, for example, recovering funds from the project promoter if an 
indicator  is  not  met.  The  beneficiary  may  only  decrease  the  target  value  of  an  indicator  if  the  amount  of  aid  is  also  proportionality 
decreased.  If  any  indicator  for  a  project  does  not  reach  75 %  of  the  value  defined  in  the  grant  contract,  the  amount  of  aid  will  be 
decreased and the beneficiary is obligated to return the proportionate amount of aid, with the exception of force majeure. 

On-site  inspections  include  checking  the  meeting  of  the  indicators  undertaken  in  the  project  and  of  project-level  milestones.  The 
Managing  Authority  may  require  that annual  maintenance  reports  be  submitted  by  the  beneficiary  for  a  period  of  five  years  (or  three 
years for SMEs) from the time set out in the grant contract. If a maintenance obligation has been set out for the project, the beneficiary 
shall  report  annually  on  the  meeting  of  indicators.  If  the  beneficiary  is  bound  by  a  maintenance  obligation  and  undertook  to  meet 
indicators  and  provide  data  in  the  maintenance  period,  the  reporting  obligation  shall  be  set  out.  The  maintenance  report  is  to  include 
reports  on  the  indicators  undertaken  for  the  maintenance  period,  the  fulfilment  of  horizontal  requirements  set  out  in  the  contract,  on 
developments in any revenues, and on the operability of the project. 

Question 2.2.4. 

1. Monitoring and Evaluation Task Force (METF) 

Performance 
measurement 
system  to  monitor 
the 
achievement 
objectives  at  EU 
measure, 
operations 

or 

The Monitoring and Evaluation Task Force (METF), which covers the institutions system, monitors the indicators, policy indices, and 
horizontal requirements created in the monitoring and information system. The thematic objectives that the funds were used for are also 
presented at the sitting of the Partnership Agreement’s (PA) Monitoring Committee. 

*  The  Partnership  Agreement’s  Monitoring  Committee  established  on  the  basis  of  Government  Decree  272/2014  of  5 November  on 

284 

 
 
 
 
 
 
project  level  and 
to  monitor 
the 
output  and  result 
indicators  at  EU 
measure, 
operations 
project level. 

or 

providing aids from EU funds in 2014-2020 ensures harmony and coordination between the operational programmes financed from CSF 
Funds, and also tracks the meeting of targets defined in the Partnership Agreement and of horizontal principles and policies. 

The Monitoring Committee’s horizontal task force supports it in the tasks related to the validation of horizontal principles and policies; 
its work is directed by the organisational unit supervised by the minister responsible for the use of EU funds. 

The Monitoring Committee will hold meetings as necessary, but at least twice a year.  In the interest of monitoring and validating the 
performance of horizontal targets and requirements, it discusses the success of the implementation of horizontal principles and policies at 
the programme level at a separate meeting held at least once a year. The permanent members of the Partnership Agreement’s Monitoring 
Committee are made up of various government bodies, ministries, local government associations, and national organisations interested in 
development policy. 

The European Commission (DG Regional and Urban Policy, DG Employment, Social Affairs and Inclusion, DG Agriculture and Rural 
Development, DG Maritime Affairs and Fisheries), the Hungarian State Treasury, the Directorate General for Audit of European Funds, 
etc. are included amongst the organisations that delegate permanent members participating in a consultant capacity. 

2. Central monitoring unit (Monitoring and Evaluation Department)  

  monitors the meeting of performance framework indicators on a monthly basis, in cooperation with the Managing Authorities; 

 

compares the absorption and indicator-level progress in the interest of providing a possibility for intervention while in progress 
and for making decisions to attain EU targets (absorption table). 

Government Decree 272/2014 sets out the resolution of the minister responsible for the use of EU funds, which include the following: 

 

 

 

 

in  cooperation  with  the  MA,  monitors  the  professional  development  of  programmes,  with  especial  regard  to  the  meeting  of 
indicators; provides methodological support for acquiring and generating the data necessary for generating indicators; examines 
the progress of indicators; prepares regular reports for the Government on all of the above in order to avoid losses of funds; has 
the given MA comment on such report as regards its technical aspects, 

coordinates  the  tasks  related  to  the  forwarding  of  the  annual  implementation  report,  the  annual  advertising  schedule,  and  the 
financial data to the Commission; provides a schedule, a common form, methodology, and a database for Managing Authorities, 

in cooperation with the MA, determines the principles for allocating performance reserves, 

supervises the performance framework that ensures project-level priority milestones are reached  and monitors the reaching of 
milestones. 

285 

 
 
 
 
 
3. Working plan and its monitoring 

The Government has approved a working plan containing commitment and payment plans. In regard to the above, a report is prepared 
for  the  Government  on  the  fulfilment  of  the  plan  by  the  fifteenth  of  each  month.  The  submitted  document  also  contains  the 
recommended measures for overcoming arrears compared to the plan, if necessary. 

Question 3.1.1. 

Yes. 

Articles 13-14 of Government Decree 370/2011 of 31 December on the internal control system of public budgetary organisations and on 
internal audits regulates the framework of monitoring. An action plan was drawn up as a result of the audits conducted by the ECA. The 
head of the audited body and the body involved in the proposal are responsible for its implementation and reporting on the implemented 
measures. The head of the budgetary body provides for the coordination of external audits and keep records on the implementation of 
action plans created on the basis of external audit recommendations. Based on the records, the head of the budgetary body reports, by 
31 January of the year following the target year, to the head of the body leading the chapter and the head of its internal audit. 

for 

Framework  or  a 
system 
the 
follow-up of ECA's 
recommendations 
to 
addressed 
Member  States  in 
annual 
Court's 
and 
special 
reports. 
and 
Monitoring 
reporting 
on 
progress  achieved 
to 
towards 
implementation  of 
Court's 
recommendations 

286 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Ireland 

Question 1.1.1 

Main  root  causes 
in  the  major  EU 
areas 
spending 
(common 
agricultural 
policy, 
regional 
and  urban  policy, 
employment, 
social  affairs  and 
inclusion)  for  the 
persisting 
risks 
and errors pointed 
out by the ECA. 

NB: In order to develop the replies, the following non-exhaustive list of examples for 
root causes of legality and regularity errors in EU expenditure may be considered 

Not 
relevant 

Relevant 
in some 
respect 

Relevant 
in most 
respect 

Fully 
relevant 

  number and complexity of rules and gold-plating 

 

incorrect transposition of applicable EU legislation into national laws 

 

failure to observe the legal and procedural requirements stemming from 
EU and national legislation and rules 

Ag 

ERDF 

ESF 

  sufficient knowledge in applying procurement rules or State aid rules or 
other  applicable  EU  legislation  and  rules  (including  conditions  and 
eligibility  criteria  for  the  rural  development  measures,  simplified  cost 
options,  reasonableness  of  costs,  result-oriented  agri-environment 
payments) 

  complex eligibility rule 

  weaknesses  in  the  set  of  eligibility  rules  that  may  lead  to  potential  for 

circumventing them 

 

insufficient quality and up-date of the Land Parcel Identification System 
(LPIS) 

  mistakes in the aid applications 

ESF 

EMFF 

Ag 

ERDF 
/ ESF 

Ag 

ESF / 
ERDF / 
EMFF 

287 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  continued risks of misinterpretation of what is the eligible area for the 

basic payment scheme  

 

inefficient sanction mechanism for non-compliance or low sanction rate 
for non-compliance 

Ag / 
ERDF 

EMFF 

  need  of  raising  awareness,  targeted  training,  and,  development  and 
delivery  of  detailed  methodological  support  and  guidance  for  national 
and regional authorities and final beneficiaries 

Ag / 
ERDF 

EMFF 
/ ESF 

  need of more or better resources and administrative capacity building 

Ag / 
ERDF 

EMFF 
/ ESF 

  need  of  an  improved  quality  of  key  aspects  of  the  supervisory  and 
control  systems  (better  design  and/or  performance  of  administrative 
checks  and  on-the-spot  controls  and/or  increase  of  the  effectiveness  of 
the  work  carried  out  by  management  verifications,  audit  authorities, 
paying agencies and certification bodies) 

  better use of the information necessary to detect and correct available in 
the supporting documents, as well as at the level of the beneficiary or a 
national/regional body 

  sufficiently robust action plans developed to address both the causes of 
errors  and  the  weaknesses  in  the  management  and  control  systems 
and/or deficiencies in the EU spending 

ERDF 

 

insufficient  introduction  of  changes  by  new  legal  and/or  regulatory 
and/or procedural frameworks likely to have a significant impact on the 
causes of errors 

EMFF / 
ESF 

ESF 

Ag / 
AMFF / 
ESF 

Ag / 
ERDF 

  need  of  more  initiatives  for  ensuring  a  genuine  simplification  for 

Ag 

beneficiaries and programmes' implementation 

EMFF 
/ ERDF / 
ESF 

288 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  knowledge and experience sharing, and dissemination of good practices 
improving  widespread 

level  on 

at  national  and/or  at  EU 
weaknesses/deficiencies/errors 

Ag / 

ESF 

ERDF 
/ EMFF 

  expected  results  from  actions  that  will  not  always  be  evident  in  short-

term 

Question 1.1.2. 

Primarily, the Irish Authorities need to better utilise the expertise within the Commission for clarification on any eligibility issues. 

The importance of highlighting where eligibility criteria have changed between the various programming periods. 

The importance of keeping informed on the outcome of emerging case law and its relevance in respect of procurement compliance. 

When designing programmes the importance of de minimis and GBER in order to simplify the compliance criteria. 

Reduce gold platting at EU and national levels. 

Minimising  the  risk  of  error  by  maintaining  consistency  and  minimum  change  between  the  eligibility  rules  across  the  various 
programming periods. 

Identifying in advance those projects/operations where more complex procurement issues may arise and providing direct assistance with 
the procurement process for those projects/operations. 

Importance of de minimis and GBER when designing programmes. 

Being selective in the type of costs claimed from EU despite what  amounts have been  paid out to beneficiaries i.e.  do not attempt to 
claim from EU all costs (cost types at high risk of EU level errors) paid and incurred by beneficiaries. 

It is too early to state whether new 2014-2020 practices introduced will be ‘success stories’.   

lessons 
Main 
while 
learned 
addressing 
the 
risks  and  errors 
for 
EU 
the 
spending. 

Question 1.1.3. 

Good 
practices 
and  examples  of 
success  stories  in 
the 
of 
areas 
compliance  with 
EU  and  national 
rules, 
eligibility 
compliance  with 
EU  and  national 
public 
procurement 
legislation, 
and 
compliance  with 
State aid rules. 

Question 1.2.1. 

ERDF: Using more comprehensive and prescriptive checklists has resulted in greatly reduced Error rates.  

289 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
ESF:  An  increased  move  towards  a  minimum  statistical  error  threshold  as  part  of  the  management  verifications  (similar  to  Audit 
Authority approach to transaction testing). 

EMFF: Strengthening of management verification checks and improved future training and guidance provided to all bodies involved in 
the  implementation  of  EMFF  OP  2014-2020.  Revised  procedure  manuals  for  all  bodies  involved  to  take  account  of  any 
recommendations made by Audit Authority and DG MARE auditors. 

A  revised  Debt  Management  Policy  and  Procedure  document  was  put  into  effect  in  October  2015  which  is  aimed  at  improving  the 
detection and correction of errors. 

ESF: The existing system already has a retrospective approach, in that when management verifications on current claims identify errors 
that are potentially in previous claims corrective actions on those claims are also taken. 

ERDF: Continue with proactive approach and regular reviews of checklists to ensure that the checklists in use are up-to-date. 

EMFF: As above. 

Further  measures 
to 
the 
enhance 
effectiveness of the 
checks  carried  out 
declaring 
before 
or 
certifying 
expenditure  to  the 
Commission. 

Question 1.2.2. 

Further  measures 
the 
to 
enhance 
of 
effectiveness 
to  detect 
actions 
and  correct  errors 
concerning 
expenditure, which 
previously 
was 
or 
declared 
certified 
the 
to 
Commission. 

Question 1.3.1. 

ESF: Increased use of the EU reimbursements of non-pay costs based on a co-financing flat rate of direct staff costs. 

Risk  analysis  and 
estimated  level  of 
error  in  the  major 
EU spending areas 
(common 
agricultural 
policy, 
regional 
and  urban  policy, 
employment, 
social  affairs  and 
inclusion). 

290 

 
 
 
 
 
Question 1.3.2. 

Yes. 

Relationship 
between  the  basis 
for  payment  and 
levels  of  error  in 
the  major  EU 
spending 
areas 
(common 
agricultural 
regional 
policy, 
and  urban  policy, 
employment, 
social  affairs  and 
inclusion). 

Question 2.1.1. 

Links  between  EU 
the 
in 
priorities 
context 
the 
of 
Europe 2020 
strategy,  including 
Horizon 2020,  and 
national priorities. 

The correlation between the basis for payment and the level of error is evident. In instances where the payment basis is more static, such 
as in areas where calculations are based on entitlements that are not subject to  much variation over time, the level of error tends to be 
low.  However  in  more  complex  schemes  such  as  those  which  involve  the  submission  of  information  such  as  invoices  and  receipts  to 
form the basis of the payment, the risk or errors arising is much higher. 

The  ESF  experience  is  that  the  more  complex  the  basis  and  rules  for  payment  the  greater  the  risk  of  errors  being  related  to  such 
payments. However, for the ERDF, the level of error increases whenever there is a significant delay between project implementation and 
certification. 

Ireland's national Research and Innovation priorities are set out in the Research Prioritisation (RP) programme which spans the five year 
period  2013-2017.  RP  identifies  14  areas  of  market  opportunity  for  Ireland  that  are  the  focus  of  investment  in  publicly  performed 
research, directed towards economic outcomes. In addition, RP identifies six platform Science and Technologies necessary to underpin 
research in the Priority Areas. RP is also Ireland’s Smart Specialisation strategy. 

The RP strategy was developed over the period 2011-2012 and was strongly influenced by the emerging themes and structure of Horizon 
2020. Therefore, the national  and EU programmes are strongly aligned. The Government  departments  and State agencies driving  and 
funding  the  national  programme  are  also  the  bodies  responsible  for  Ireland’s  participation  in  Horizon  2020.  These  Government 
departments  and  State  agencies  are  represented  on  a  cross-Government  committee,  the  High  Level  Group  (HLG)  on  Horizon  2020, 
which  is  responsible  for  national  oversight  of  Ireland’s  performance  in  Horizon  2020.  This  tight  coupling,  both  at  the  strategic  and 
operational levels, between the national and EU programmes enables Ireland to maximise the synergies between the two programmes. 

The  co-funded  2014-2020 Operational  Programmes  are  based  on an  intervention  logic  that links  Member  State  objectives  to  EU2020 
targets and a justification process that took place as part of the selection of co-funded activities based on achieving common National 
and EU objectives. 

Furthermore, measures supported in the OPs are linked to performance through the use of indicators. 

Question 2.1.2. 

The synergies are being investigated. 

Measures 
pursue 
and 

to 
synergies 

See response to 2.1.1 above. 

291 

 
 
 
complementarities 
ESI 
between 
and 
Funds 
national 
programmes . 

Question 2.2.1. 

See response to 2.1.1. above. 

Performance 
measurement 
system  to  link  EU 
measures, 
operations 
projects 
priorities/Europe 
2020 
and targets. 

or 
to  EU 

objectives 

Developing a 2014-2020 IT system to capture common indicator data to increase the monitoring and evaluation of results and overall 
programme objectives. 

Question 2.2.2. 

Framework for the 
of 
management 
ESI 
in 
Funds 
order  to  achieve  a 
result-oriented 
system  and  impact 
of EU projects. 

Question 2.2.3. 

Yes. 

Member 
State 
actions  to  define 
or  improve  result 
indicators  at  EU 
project level. 

For  the  ERDF,  result  indicators  are  defined  at  activity  level  and  are  reported  to  and  monitored  by  the  Monitoring  Committees.  ESF 
require long term result indicator data (6 months after completing co-funded intervention) that will be used to assess the performance 
and future funding of activities. 

Question 2.2.4. 

The  2014-2020  IT  system  will  capture  indicator  data  to  increase  the  monitoring  and  evaluation  of  results  and  overall  programme 
objectives. 

292 

 
 
 
Performance 
measurement 
system  to  monitor 
the 
achievement 
objectives  at  EU 
measure, 
or 
operations 
project  level  and 
to  monitor 
the 
output  and  result 
indicators  at  EU 
measure, 
operations 
project level. 

or 

Question 3.1.1. 

Yes. 

The  Commission  communicates  the  ECA’s  recommendation  through  various  EU  level  forums  and  also  during  structured  bilateral 
Commission/Member State meetings. These communications are sometimes followed up as part of recommendations in formal letters 
from the Commission seeking details on the implementation of same. 

for 

Framework  or  a 
the 
system 
follow-up of ECA's 
recommendations 
addressed 
to 
Member  States  in 
annual 
Court's 
and 
special 
reports. 
and 
Monitoring 
reporting 
on 
progress  achieved 
towards 
to 
implementation  of 
Court's 
recommendations 

293 

 
 
 
 
 
Italy 

Question 1.1.1 

Main  root  causes 
in  the  major  EU 
areas 
spending 
(common 
agricultural 
policy, 
regional 
and  urban  policy, 
employment, 
social  affairs  and 
inclusion)  for  the 
persisting 
risks 
and errors pointed 
out by the ECA. 

NB: In order to develop the replies, the following non-exhaustive list of examples for 
root causes of legality and regularity errors in EU expenditure may be considered 

Not 
relevant 

Relevant 
in some 
respect 

Relevant 
in most 
respect 

Fully 
relevant 

  number and complexity of rules and gold-plating 

 

incorrect transposition of applicable EU legislation into national laws 

 

failure to observe the legal and procedural requirements stemming from 
EU and national legislation and rules 

  sufficient knowledge in applying procurement rules or State aid rules or 
other  applicable  EU  legislation  and  rules  (including  conditions  and 
eligibility  criteria  for  the  rural  development  measures,  simplified  cost 
options,  reasonableness  of  costs,  result-oriented  agri-environment 
payments) 

  complex eligibility rule 

  weaknesses  in  the  set  of  eligibility  rules  that  may  lead  to  potential  for 

circumventing them 

 

insufficient quality and up-date of the Land Parcel Identification System 
(LPIS) 

  mistakes in the aid applications 

  continued risks of misinterpretation of what is the eligible area for the 

basic payment scheme  

294 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

inefficient sanction mechanism for non-compliance or low sanction rate 
for non-compliance 

  need  of  raising  awareness,  targeted  training,  and,  development  and 
delivery  of  detailed  methodological  support  and  guidance  for  national 
and regional authorities and final beneficiaries 

  need of more or better resources and administrative capacity building 

  need  of  an  improved  quality  of  key  aspects  of  the  supervisory  and 
control  systems  (better  design  and/or  performance  of  administrative 
checks  and  on-the-spot  controls  and/or  increase  of  the  effectiveness  of 
the  work  carried  out  by  management  verifications,  audit  authorities, 
paying agencies and certification bodies) 

  better use of the information necessary to detect and correct available in 
the supporting documents, as well as at the level of the beneficiary or a 
national/regional body 

  sufficiently robust action plans developed to address both the causes of 
errors  and  the  weaknesses  in  the  management  and  control  systems 
and/or deficiencies in the EU spending 

 

insufficient  introduction  of  changes  by  new  legal  and/or  regulatory 
and/or procedural frameworks likely to have a significant impact on the 
causes of errors 

  need  of  more  initiatives  for  ensuring  a  genuine  simplification  for 

beneficiaries and programmes' implementation 

  knowledge and experience sharing, and dissemination of good practices 
improving  widespread 

at  national  and/or  at  EU 

level  on 

295 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
weaknesses/deficiencies/errors 

  expected  results  from  actions  that  will  not  always  be  evident  in  short-

term 

Question 1.1.2. 

lessons 
Main 
while 
learned 
addressing 
the 
risks  and  errors 
for 
EU 
the 
spending. 

Question 1.1.3. 

practices 
Good 
and  examples  of 
success  stories  in 
the 
of 
areas 
compliance  with 
EU  and  national 
eligibility 
rules, 
compliance  with 
EU  and  national 
public 
procurement 
legislation, 
and 
compliance  with 
State aid rules. 

Question 1.2.1. 

Further  measures 
to 
the 
enhance 
effectiveness of the 

296 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
checks  carried  out 
declaring 
before 
certifying 
or 
expenditure  to  the 
Commission. 

Question 1.2.2. 

Further  measures 
the 
to 
enhance 
of 
effectiveness 
actions 
to  detect 
and  correct  errors 
concerning 
expenditure, which 
previously 
was 
or 
declared 
certified 
the 
to 
Commission. 

Question 1.3.1. 

Risk  analysis  and 
estimated  level  of 
error  in  the  major 
EU spending areas 
(common 
agricultural 
policy, 
regional 
and  urban  policy, 
employment, 
social  affairs  and 
inclusion). 

Question 1.3.2. 

Yes – if "Yes" please describe 

Relationship 
between  the  basis 

No – if "No" please give reasons why not 

297 

 
 
 
 
for  payment  and 
levels  of  error  in 
the  major  EU 
spending 
areas 
(common 
agricultural 
regional 
policy, 
and  urban  policy, 
employment, 
social  affairs  and 
inclusion). 

Question 2.1.1. 

Links  between  EU 
the 
in 
priorities 
context 
the 
of 
Europe 2020 
strategy,  including 
Horizon 2020,  and 
national priorities. 

Question 2.1.2. 

to 
synergies 

Measures 
pursue 
and 
complementarities 
ESI 
between 
Funds 
and 
national 
programmes . 

Question 2.2.1. 

Performance 
measurement 
system  to  link  EU 

298 

 
 
 
 
 
or 
to  EU 

measures, 
operations 
projects 
priorities/Europe 
2020 
and targets. 

objectives 

Question 2.2.2. 

Framework for the 
of 
management 
ESI 
in 
Funds 
order  to  achieve  a 
result-oriented 
system  and  impact 
of EU projects. 

Question 2.2.3. 

Yes – if " Yes" please describe them 

No – if  "No" please give reasons why not 

State 
Member 
actions  to  define 
or  improve  result 
indicators  at  EU 
project level. 

Question 2.2.4. 

Performance 
measurement 
system  to  monitor 
the 
achievement 
objectives  at  EU 
measure, 
operations 
or 
project  level  and 
the 
to  monitor 
output  and  result 
indicators  at  EU 

299 

 
 
 
 
 
measure, 
operations 
project level. 

or 

Question 3.1.1. 

Yes. 

In the case of matters that require changes to the procedures, the competent authority is immediately involved. It will then update the 
reference provisions. 

for 

Framework  or  a 
system 
the 
follow-up of ECA's 
recommendations 
to 
addressed 
Member  States  in 
annual 
Court's 
and 
special 
reports. 
and 
Monitoring 
reporting 
on 
progress  achieved 
to 
towards 
implementation  of 
Court's 
recommendations 

300 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Latvia 

Question 1.1.1 

Main  root  causes 
in  the  major  EU 
areas 
spending 
(common 
agricultural 
policy, 
regional 
and  urban  policy, 
employment, 
social  affairs  and 
inclusion)  for  the 
persisting 
risks 
and errors pointed 
out by the ECA. 

NB: In order to develop the replies, the following non-exhaustive list of examples for 
root causes of legality and regularity errors in EU expenditure may be considered 

Not 
relevant 

Relevant 
in some 
respect 

Relevant 
in most 
respect 

Fully 
relevant 

  number and complexity of rules and gold-plating 

 

incorrect transposition of applicable EU legislation into national laws 

 

failure to observe the legal and procedural requirements stemming from 
EU and national legislation and rules 

  sufficient knowledge in applying procurement rules or State aid rules or 
other  applicable  EU  legislation  and  rules  (including  conditions  and 
eligibility  criteria  for  the  rural  development  measures,  simplified  cost 
options,  reasonableness  of  costs,  result-oriented  agri-environment 
payments) 

  complex eligibility rule 

  weaknesses  in  the  set  of  eligibility  rules  that  may  lead  to  potential  for 

circumventing them 

 

insufficient quality and up-date of the Land Parcel Identification System 
(LPIS) 

  mistakes in the aid applications 

  continued risks of misinterpretation of what is the eligible area for the 

basic payment scheme  

 

inefficient sanction mechanism for non-compliance or low sanction rate 

301 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
for non-compliance 

  need  of  raising  awareness,  targeted  training,  and,  development  and 
delivery  of  detailed  methodological  support  and  guidance  for  national 
and regional authorities and final beneficiaries 

  need of more or better resources and administrative capacity building 

  need  of  an  improved  quality  of  key  aspects  of  the  supervisory  and 
control  systems  (better  design  and/or  performance  of  administrative 
checks  and  on-the-spot  controls  and/or  increase  of  the  effectiveness  of 
the  work  carried  out  by  management  verifications,  audit  authorities, 
paying agencies and certification bodies) 

  better use of the information necessary to detect and correct available in 
the supporting documents, as well as at the level of the beneficiary or a 
national/regional body 

  sufficiently robust action plans developed to address both the causes of 
errors  and  the  weaknesses  in  the  management  and  control  systems 
and/or deficiencies in the EU spending 

 

insufficient  introduction  of  changes  by  new  legal  and/or  regulatory 
and/or procedural frameworks likely to have a significant impact on the 
causes of errors 

  need  of  more  initiatives  for  ensuring  a  genuine  simplification  for 

beneficiaries and programmes' implementation 

  knowledge and experience sharing, and dissemination of good practices 
improving  widespread 

level  on 

at  national  and/or  at  EU 
weaknesses/deficiencies/errors 

  expected  results  from  actions  that  will  not  always  be  evident  in  short-

term 

302 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
The eligibility conditions and requirements set out in EU legislation are open to different interpretations, these conditions/requirements 
are  excessively  regulated  and  Member  States  are  given  practically  no  discretionary  power/flexibility  in  the  implementation  of  aid 
measures (operational programmes are very detailed), so the process of preparing, implementing and modifying operational programmes 
is heavy, complex and lengthy, giving rise to an unnecessary additional administrative burden, which leads to an increased risk of error. 

In Latvia’s case the main cause of the persisting risks and errors relates to the issue of compliance with EU and Member State public 
procurement legislation. During the 2007–2013 programming period, of all the errors ascertained by the Court of Auditors, 36 % were 
linked  to  infringements  in  the  area  of  procurement,  25  %  were  linked  to  shortcomings  in  project  implementation  (defects,  technical 
performance, etc.) and 14 % were errors concerning infringements of expenditure eligibility conditions. 

On the basis of the governing regulations, and in the light of experience gained during previous programming periods, Latvia has drawn 
up  guidelines  on  expenditure  eligibility  and  these  have  been  approved  by  the  authorities  involved  in  EU  fund  administration.  In 
comparison  to  the  previous  programming  period,  one  positive  aspect  is  that  the  transfer  of  all  the  specific  support  objectives  of  an 
operational  programme  to  one  liaison  body  has  reduced  the  possibility  of  differing  interpretations  and  means  of  application.  The 
Commission’s methodological materials (simplified cost guidelines), working groups and explanations are helpful in finding solutions to 
specific problematic situations encountered by Member State authorities. 

The  authority  responsible  for  the  area  of  public  procurement  reacts  proactively  to  changes  in  EU-level  statutory  legislation,  by 
incorporating  modifications  into  national  statutory  legislation  and  methodological  materials  and  providing  clarifications  both  to 
authorities  involved  in  EU  fund  administration  and  to  the  recipients  of  financing.  Where  any  derogation  from  the  provisions  of 
Commission Directives is found, the situation is rectified and the applicable practice is assessed and improved. 

Question 1.1.2. 

lessons 
Main 
while 
learned 
addressing 
the 
risks  and  errors 
for 
EU 
the 
spending. 

In Latvia all State aid conditions are incorporated in the relevant State aid programme and Cabinet regulations. 

Question 1.1.3. 

Good 
practices 
and  examples  of 
success  stories  in 
of 
areas 
the 
compliance  with 
EU  and  national 
eligibility 
rules, 
compliance  with 
EU  and  national 
public 

To  assess  the  experience  gained  during  the  2007–2013  programming  period  relating  to  the  use  of  simplified  costs,  the  Ministry  of 
Finance commissioned an evaluation, the conclusions of which were taken into account for improving the use of simplified costs in the 
2014–2020 programming period, since previous experience shows that the considered and justified use of simplified costs considerably 
reduces  the  administrative  burden  of  those  receiving  financing,  and  also  speeds  up  the  absorption  of  funds.  The  Commission  also 
supports  the  use  of  simplified  costs  and  suggests  they  are  used  as  much  as  possible,  thereby  concentrating  more  on  achieving  results 
rather than reporting standard expenditure. In order to ensure the common practical application of simplified costs, for the  2014–2020 
programming period the Ministry of Finance, as the managing authority for the European Union Structural Funds and Cohesion Fund, 
has drawn up three methodologies for the use of simplified costs (methodologies for unit payments, indirect rate payments, and single 
payments in the 2014–2020 programming period), which are available on the EU fund website (www.esfondi.lv). These methodologies 
substantially reduce the administrative burden for those responsible for developing methodologies and provide for a common approach 
for the development of methodologies on a national level. Provisions on a national level stipulate that indirect costs can be calculated 

303 

 
 
 
 
only using the 15 % flat rate for indirect costs, and the use of unit costs is becoming ever more popular as competent authorities begin to 
appreciate the benefits of using simplified costs. 

The principle of the one-stop shop has been introduced, i.e. project selection and monitoring are conducted by a single agency, and IT 
systems  have  been  updated/enhanced  (an  electronic  application  system  and  geospatial  applications  have  been  created),  which  help  to 
reduce  the  risk  of  errors  and  duplicate  declarations  with  regard  to  direct  payments/area  payments.  A  greening  calculator  has  been 
developed, and individual electronic project application platforms have been created, for example LEADER. 

Controls have been enhanced by developing even more detailed check sheets, introducing IT tools that both reduce the number of errors 
when a recipient of financing is making a project application, and facilitate the monitoring of projects and communication. For example, 
the acceptance of direct payment/area payment applications is only carried out electronically using the electronic application system, the 
geospatial application system is used and controls are carried out remotely using satellite images. 

Random data checks are used in connection with reports, and where errors are identified relating to expenditure that has already been 
declared, the possibility is considered of making a correction to the subsequent declaration, excluding this expenditure. 

procurement 
legislation, 
and 
compliance  with 
State aid rules. 

Question 1.2.1. 

Further  measures 
the 
enhance 
to 
effectiveness of the 
checks  carried  out 
before 
declaring 
certifying 
or 
expenditure  to  the 
Commission. 

Question 1.2.2. 

Further  measures 
the 
to 
enhance 
of 
effectiveness 
actions 
to  detect 
and  correct  errors 
concerning 
expenditure, which 
previously 
was 
or 
declared 
certified 
the 
to 
Commission. 

Question 1.3.1. 

Quality controls, risk analyses and staff training take place. Risk baskets relating to area payments are analysed annually and corrected 

304 

 
 
 
 
 
where  necessary.  Risks  and  irregularities  are  collated.  Provision  is  made  for  risk  assessments  in  project  measure  administration 
procedures. 

Risk  analysis  and 
estimated  level  of 
error  in  the  major 
EU spending areas 
(common 
agricultural 
regional 
policy, 
and  urban  policy, 
employment, 
social  affairs  and 
inclusion). 

Question 1.3.2. 

No. 

Relationship 
between  the  basis 
for  payment  and 
levels  of  error  in 
the  major  EU 
spending 
areas 
(common 
agricultural 
regional 
policy, 
and  urban  policy, 
employment, 
social  affairs  and 
inclusion). 

Question 2.1.1. 

Links  between  EU 
the 
in 
priorities 
context 
the 
of 
Europe 2020 
strategy,  including 
Horizon 2020,  and 
national priorities. 

We  believe  that  the  level  of  error  is  dependent  on  the  nature  of  a  project  rather  than  expenditure.  Investment-type  support  measures 
entail a much higher risk of error than direct payment/area payment support measures, because the implementation of investment support 
measures  is  complex,  broad-ranging  and  lengthy,  is  based  on  the  performance  of  complex,  detailed  checks  and  is  human-resource 
intensive. 

The  five  main  priorities  of  the  Europe  2020  strategy  (employment,  innovation,  education,  poverty  reduction  and  climate/energy)  are 
defined in Latvia’s EU fund programming documents. 

The operational programme ‘Growth and employment’ defines the following priority axes: 

 

 

employment and worker mobility; 

research, technological development and innovation; 

305 

 
 
 
 
 

education, skills and lifelong learning; 

  promoting social inclusion and combating poverty; 

 

the shift towards a low-carbon economy in all sectors. 

Objectives  are  set  out  in  detail  for  each  priority  axis  and  individual  monitoring  indicators  are  defined  alongside  the  specific  support 
objectives the Government intends to achieve through the implementation of each project. Hence, to ensure a common approach towards 
achieving specific support objectives, indicators, and in turn also ES2020 objectives, the common criterion for the selection of project 
applications stipulates a focus on performance and on the monitoring indicators defined in the operational programme. 

Within  the  framework  of  specific  support  objective  1.1.1.  ‘Increasing  the  research  and  innovation  capacity  of  Latvia’s  scientific 
institutions and their ability to attract external financing by investing in human resources and infrastructure’, there are plans to develop 
the  R&D  infrastructure  to  facilitate  practical  research  and  technology  transfer  at  research  institutions  in  line  with  the  Smart 
Specialisation Strategy (RIS3); the main users of this infrastructure will be scientific staff. Synergy and demarcation with respect to the 
Horizon  2020  programme  will  also  feature  within  the  framework  of  specific  support  objectives,  with  the  aim  of  promoting  closer 
cooperation between scientific institutions and industry and enhancing international cooperation in line with the Guidelines  on science, 
technological  development  and  innovation  (ZTAI),  particularly  in  complementarity  with  the  Horizon  2020  Spreading  Excellence  and 
Widening Participation activities (twinning and networking measures, the European Research Area Chairs initiative (ERA Chairs)). 

Coordination  with  other  support  instruments  has  been  incorporated  into  programming  documentation  and  in  certain  specific  support 
objective implementation rules, for example, a common criterion is set out in the project application  selection criteria. The mechanism 
for implementing specific support objectives, including synergy with other instruments, is being discussed by subcommittees. 

The Europe 2020 strategy’s five main priorities (employment, innovation, education, poverty reduction and climate/energy) and main 
objectives are defined in Latvia’s EU fund programming documents (see the answer under point 2.1.1). 

306 

Question 2.1.2. 

to 
synergies 

Measures 
pursue 
and 
complementarities 
ESI 
between 
and 
Funds 
national 
programmes . 

Question 2.2.1. 

Performance 
measurement 
system  to  link  EU 
measures, 
operations 

or 

 
 
 
 
 
to  EU 

projects 
priorities/Europe 
2020 
and targets. 

objectives 

Question 2.2.2. 

Framework for the 
of 
management 
ESI 
in 
Funds 
order  to  achieve  a 
result-oriented 
system  and  impact 
of EU projects. 

The focus on performance and on the monitoring indicators defined in the operational programme are stipulated in the common criteria 
for  project  application  selection,  which  are  discussed  within  the  framework  of  subcommittee  procedures  (see  the  answer  under  point 
2.1.1).   

A  continuous  evaluation  system  has  been  developed  for  the  purposes  of  EAFRD  and  EMFF  assessment/evaluation  and  has  been  in 
operation  since  the  2007–2013  programming  period;  the  system  was  created  on  the  basis  of  the  main  operational  principles  of  the 
common monitoring and evaluation system defined by the European Commission. Continuous evaluation includes any activity relating 
to  evaluation,  collation  and  updating  of  indicators  –  overall  context  indicators,  impact  indicators,  priority  area  and  performance 
indicators – and gathering of information, and also thematic evaluation relating to the EAFRD and the EMFF. 

Question 2.2.3. 

Yes. 

State 
Member 
actions  to  define 
or  improve  result 
indicators  at  EU 
project level. 

Question 2.2.4. 

Performance 
measurement 
system  to  monitor 
the 
achievement 
objectives  at  EU 
measure, 
operations 
or 
project  level  and 
the 
to  monitor 
output  and  result 
indicators  at  EU 

Result indicators are defined in operational programmes. During the specific support objective project implementation process, where it 
emerges  that  result  indicators  must  be  improved  so  as  to  ensure  more  targeted  results,  the  possibility  is  assessed  of  putting  forward 
operational programme proposals. 

In  the  case  of  the  EAFRD,  result  indicators  are  reviewed  under  the  continuous  assessment  system  (thematic  assessments,  annual 
implementation reports). 

In addition to the aforementioned points relating to the measuring system aspects of the planning phase (see the answer under 2.1.1), in 
order  to  ensure  monitoring  of  priority  axes,  investment  priorities,  specific  support  objectives,  implementation  of  measures  and 
achievement  of  results  with  respect  to  the  achievement  of  investment  finance,  outcome  and  result  indicators  and  of  the  main 
implementation phases (including with regard to satisfying the performance framework in 2018 and 2023), laid down in programming 
documents  and  the  statutory  legislation  on  the  implementation  of  specific  support  objectives,  and  the  implementation  of  horizontal 
principles, including the monitoring of horizontal principle indicators: 

  each year the managing authority draws up EU Fund financing and performance scenarios, coordinates these with the liaison body 
and  the  responsible  authorities  and  submits  them  to  the  Government  (these  scenarios  include  performance,  outcome  and  result 
indicators as stipulated in operational programmes, and also specific outcome indicators laid down at national level and up to specific 
support objective level). 2016 scenarios were discussed by the Cabinet on 22 March 2016. 

  project  implementation  agreements  with  financing  recipients  provide  that  recipients  of  financing  must  ensure  that  the  objectives 
specified in the project, project operational result and monitoring indicators and, where applicable, horizontal principal indicators are 

307 

 
 
 
measure, 
operations 
project level. 

or 

achieved. 

  in accordance with their remit as laid down in legislation, the authorities involved in managing EU projects must ensure monitoring at 
all levels of progress towards achieving the intended objectives and indicators (e.g. responsible authorities – on the level of priority 
axes and specific support objectives; liaison bodies – on project level), and where necessary they must proactively initiate measures 
to improve a given situation. Once a year the responsible authorities and liaison bodies submit to the managing authority analytical 
reports, indicating inter alia potential risks and any necessary coordinated action. In its regular half-yearly report to the Government 
and the annual report to the European Commission, the managing authority includes an extensive analysis and where necessary also 
proposals for improving the situation. 

  in addition, each month the managing authority monitors the financial progress of specific support objectives (including performance 
framework financial indicators) and publishes the relevant information  at http://www.esfondi.lv/finansu-un-raditaju-plani-to-izpilde; 
it also provides information on the progress of investments to the Government (once a month) and the Parliament [Saeima] (once a 
quarter). 

  all the information on objectives and indicators that is required for monitoring is stored in the EU Cohesion Policy Fund management 

information system (KP VIS). 

The basic principles of the monitoring system are laid down in Cabinet Regulation No 108 of 24 February 2015 on the Procedure for 
monitoring  and  evaluating  the  implementation  of  European  Union  Structural  Funds  and  the  Cohesion  Fund,  and  for  creating  and 
operating the Cohesion Policy Fund management information system for the 2014-2020 period, in the managing authority’s Guidelines 
No 2.6 on the basic principles and procedures for the operation of the European Union Structural Funds and Cohesion Fund monitoring 
system for the 2014–2020 programming period, and also in other documents of the authorities involved in EU fund management. 

All  the  necessary  operational/project  level  data  for  EAFRD  and  EMFF  assessment/evaluation  are  stored  in  the  common  central 
information system developed by the Rural Support Service, and also by the Central Statistical Board (CSP), by Eurostat, in the Farm 
Accountancy  Data  Network  (SUDAT),  in  the  aggregated  economic  database  for  agriculture  (LEK)  and  elsewhere.  The  attainment  of 
defined objectives is monitored within the framework of the continuous evaluation system, and on competent authority level using all 
available indicators that characterise operations. 

Question 3.1.1. 

Yes. 

for 

Framework  or  a 
the 
system 
follow-up of ECA's 
recommendations 
addressed 

to 

Recommendations  put  forward  as  a  result  of  ECA  audits  are  implemented  on  the  basis  of  the  findings  set  out  in  reports,  and  their 
implementation is coordinated by the European Commission. Hence, once a required measure has been carried out, the Member State 
notifies  the  Commission  and  the  ECA.  On  a  national  level,  the  exchange  of  information  between  the  ECA  and  stakeholder  bodies  is 
coordinated by the National Audit Office. 

308 

 
 
 
 
Meetings are organised between the Ministry of Agriculture and the Rural Support Service at which ECA recommendations and their 
implementation  are  analysed.  Whenever  necessary,  the  National  Action  Plan  on  reducing  the  error  rate  is  updated  and  this  is  also 
forwarded  to  the  European  Commission;  the  Plan  includes  the  ECA’s  recommendations,  the  measures  planned  by  the  Latvian 
authorities,  implementation  deadlines,  etc.  Monitoring  of  ECA  recommendations  is  carried  out  using  the  National  Action  Plan  on 
reducing the error rate. The Latvian National Audit Office also monitors ECA reports and recommendations. 

Member  States  in 
annual 
Court's 
special 
and 
reports. 
and 
Monitoring 
reporting 
on 
progress  achieved 
towards 
to 
implementation  of 
Court's 
recommendations 

309 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Lithuania 

Question 1.1.1 

Main  root  causes 
in  the  major  EU 
areas 
spending 
(common 
agricultural 
policy, 
regional 
and  urban  policy, 
employment, 
social  affairs  and 
inclusion)  for  the 
persisting 
risks 
and errors pointed 
out by the ECA. 

NB: In order to develop the replies, the following non-exhaustive list of examples for 
root causes of legality and regularity errors in EU expenditure may be considered 

Not 
relevant 

Relevant 
in some 
respect 

Relevant 
in most 
respect 

Fully 
relevant 

  number and complexity of rules and gold-plating 

 

incorrect transposition of applicable EU legislation into national laws 

 

failure to observe the legal and procedural requirements stemming from 
EU and national legislation and rules 

  sufficient knowledge in applying procurement rules or State aid rules or 
other  applicable  EU  legislation  and  rules  (including  conditions  and 
eligibility  criteria  for  the  rural  development  measures,  simplified  cost 
options,  reasonableness  of  costs,  result-oriented  agri-environment 
payments) 

  complex eligibility rule 

  weaknesses  in  the  set  of  eligibility  rules  that  may  lead  to  potential  for 

circumventing them 

 

insufficient quality and up-date of the Land Parcel Identification System 
(LPIS) 

  mistakes in the aid applications 

  continued risks of misinterpretation of what is the eligible area for the 

basic payment scheme  

310 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

inefficient sanction mechanism for non-compliance or low sanction rate 
for non-compliance 

  need  of  raising  awareness,  targeted  training,  and,  development  and 
delivery  of  detailed  methodological  support  and  guidance  for  national 
and regional authorities and final beneficiaries 

  need of more or better resources and administrative capacity building 

  need  of  an  improved  quality  of  key  aspects  of  the  supervisory  and 
control  systems  (better  design  and/or  performance  of  administrative 
checks  and  on-the-spot  controls  and/or  increase  of  the  effectiveness  of 
the  work  carried  out  by  management  verifications,  audit  authorities, 
paying agencies and certification bodies) 

  better use of the information necessary to detect and correct available in 
the supporting documents, as well as at the level of the beneficiary or a 
national/regional body 

  sufficiently robust action plans developed to address both the causes of 
errors  and  the  weaknesses  in  the  management  and  control  systems 
and/or deficiencies in the EU spending 

 

insufficient  introduction  of  changes  by  new  legal  and/or  regulatory 
and/or procedural frameworks likely to have a significant impact on the 
causes of errors 

  need  of  more  initiatives  for  ensuring  a  genuine  simplification  for 

beneficiaries and programmes' implementation 

  knowledge and experience sharing, and dissemination of good practices 
improving  widespread 

at  national  and/or  at  EU 

level  on 

311 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Question 1.1.2. 

lessons 
Main 
while 
learned 
addressing 
the 
risks  and  errors 
for 
EU 
the 
spending. 

weaknesses/deficiencies/errors 

  expected  results  from  actions  that  will  not  always  be  evident  in  short-

term 

Pursuant to Article 56(4) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1083/2006 of 11 July 2006 laying down general provisions on the European 
Regional Development Fund, the European Social Fund and the Cohesion Fund and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999 (OJ L 210, 
2006, p. 25), as amended by Regulation (EU) No 423/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2012 (OJ L 133, 
2012, p. 1) (hereinafter Regulation (EC) No 1083/2006) (subject to exceptions provided for in the specific Regulations for each Fund, 
Member  States  are  entitled  to  lay  down  at  national  level  the  rules  on  the  eligibility  of  expenditure  which  cover  the  entirety  of  the 
expenditure declared under the operational programme), at national level the general provisions governing project expenditure enabling 
them  to  be  recognised  as  declarable  to  the  European  Commission  are  laid  down  in  the  rules  on  the  compliance  with  expenditure  and 
financing requirements of projects carried out under Lithuania's 2007-2013 strategy for the use of European Union structural aid and the 
operational  programmes  implementing  it,  approved  by  Government  Resolution  No  1179  of  31  October  2007  on  the  rules  on  the 
compliance with expenditure and financing requirements of projects carried out under Lithuania's 2007-2013 strategy for the use of EU 
structural aid and the operational programmes implementing it ('the rules on eligibility of expenditure’). 

The specific requirements relating to the terms applicable to project expenditure eligibility are laid down in the corresponding  project 
financing conditions, the drafting and approval of which  – under subparagraph 7.2.6 of the rules on the distribution of responsibilities 
and functions between institutions with regard to the implementation of Lithuania's 2007-2013 strategy for the use of EU structural aid 
and  operational  programmes,  approved  by  Lithuanian  Government  Resolution  No  1139  of  17  October  2007  on  the  rules  on  the 
distribution of responsibilities and functions between institutions with regard to the implementation of Lithuania's 2007-2013 strategy for 
the use of EU structural aid and operational programmes (‘the responsibility rules’)  – are delegated to the Ministries and/or other state 
bodies competent under the terms of their remit for economic sectors co-financed from EU funds (‘the Ministries’). The Ministries, as 
provided  for  in  paragraph  24  of  the  rules  on  eligibility  of  expenditure,  can  lay  down  in  the  project  financing  conditions  more  severe 
restrictions  regarding  compliance  with  expenditure  and  financing  requirements  than  those  established  in  the  rules  on  eligibility  of 
expenditure. 

The  Ministry  of  Finance,  as  the  managing  body,  pursuant  to  subparagraph  5.3.1  of  the  responsibility  rules,  provides  institutions  with 
clarifications and methodological instructions about the applicability of legal provisions. For example, the Ministry of Finance has drawn 
up  recommendations  regarding  the  compliance  of  project  expenditure  with  financing  requirements,  providing  an  explanation  of  how 
European  Union  and  Lithuanian  legislation  must  be  applied  so  as  to  ensure  the  correct  evaluation  of  eligible  project  expenditure 
(publicly available on the European Union structural support website www.esparama.lt).  

With respect to the 2014–2020 financing period, pursuant to Article 65(1) of Regulation (EU) No 1303/2013 of the European Parliament 
and of the Council of 17 December 2013 laying down common provisions on the European Regional Development Fund, the European 
Social Fund, the Cohesion Fund, the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development and the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund 
and laying down general provisions on the European Regional Development Fund, the European Social Fund, the Cohesion Fund and the 

312 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
European Maritime and Fisheries Fund and repealing Council Regulation (EC) No 1083/2006, the basic requirements for the eligibility 
of  expenditure  are  laid  down  in  the  rules  for  the  administration  and  financing  of  projects,  approved  by  Order  No  1K-316  of 
8 October 2014  of  the  Lithuanian  Minister  for  Finance  on  the  approval  of  the  rules  for  the  administration  and  financing  of  projects 
(‘2014–2020 RAFP’). 

Also,  the  Ministry  of  Finance,  as  the  managing  body,  in  accordance  with  subparagraph  4.7.1.  of  the  rules  on  the  distribution  of 
responsibilities and functions between institutions with regard to the implementation of Lithuania's 2014–2020 Operational programme 
for  Investments  from  the  European  Union  Funds,  approved  by  Lithuanian  Government  Resolution  No 528  of  4 June 2014  on  the 
distribution  of  responsibilities  and  functions  between  institutions  with  regard  to  the  implementation  of  Lithuania's  2014–2020 
Operational  programme  for  Investments  from  the  European  Union  Funds  (the  2014–2020  responsibility  rules),  has  drawn  up 
the  compliance  of  project  expenditure  with  European  Union  Structural  Fund  requirements  (‘the 
Recommendations  on 
Recommendations’), approved under protocol No 34 of 4 July 2014 of the management committees of the Operational Programme for 
the  Development  of  Human  Resources,  the  Operational  Programme  for  Economic  Growth,  the  Operational  Programme  for  the 
Promotion  of  Cohesion,  and  the  2014–2020  Operational  Programme  for  Investments  from  the  European  Union  Funds.  The 
Recommendations explain how European Union and Lithuanian legislation must be applied so as to ensure the correct identification and 
evaluation  of  eligible  project  expenditure  in  accordance  with  the  principle  of  sound  financial  management.  The  Ministries  and 
implementing  bodies,  in  undertaking  the  functions  delegated  to  them  under  the  2014–2020  responsibility  rules,  apply  the 
Recommendations when evaluating project applications and adopting decisions on the eligibility of expenditure (publicly available on 
the European Union Structural Fund website www.esinvesticijos.lt). 

In an endeavour to ensure the correct implementation of operational programmes under the requirements arising from EU legislation, 
and to prevent infringements in the area of public procurement, the Public Procurement Office is involved in the 2014–2020 European 
Union Structural Fund administration system, as was the case during the previous financing period, and pursuant to the Lithuanian law 
on  public  procurement,  the  Public  Procurement  Office  is  responsible  for  the  implementation  of  public  procurement  policy  and  for 
monitoring  compliance  with  the  Law  on  public  procurement  and  the  legislation  linked  to  its  implementation,  applying  preventive 
measures, providing consultations regarding public procurement matters, and administering the Central Public Procurement Information 
System. 

With the aim of ensuring that management inspections are conducted correctly and in due time, the Ministry of Finance, as the managing 
body,  has  incorporated  provisions  into  national  legislation  laying  down  the  procedure  for  checking  project  promotors’  public 
procurement documents, and has approved the public procurement check sheet template (the public procurement check sheet template 
was approved under protocol No 19 of 29 May 2015 of the 2014–2020 European Union Structural Fund administration working group, 
established  in  accordance  with  Order  No  1K-243  of  11  July 2013  of  the  Lithuanian  Minister  for  Finance  on  the  establishment  of  a 
working group). 

Furthermore, with a view to preventing infringements in the field of public procurement, improvements are due to be made to the Central 
Public  Procurement  Information  System  during  the  2014–2020  European  Union  Structural  Fund  administration  period,  enabling 

313 

 
 
 
intermediate bodies to exercise more effective control over public procurements being conducted using the tools of the Central Public 
Procurement Information System. 

The Lithuanian Competition Council is involved in the administration of the 2014–2020 European Union Structural Funds with the aim 
of ensuring compliance with competition principles and preventing State aid infringements. The Competition Council advises authorities 
and project promoters on matters relating to the application of competition policy and State aid, analyses State aid projects and organises 
training.  With  a  view  to  improving  State  aid  control  and  compliance  with  legislation  on  the  granting  of  State  aid,  the  Ministry  of 
Finance, as the managing body, carries out checks at two levels – at the level of the priority implementing measure under the 2014–2020 
Operational programme for Investments from the European Union Funds (by completing a general State aid check sheet (the template 
for the check sheet on State aid and the presence or absence of de minimis aid was approved by protocol No 8 of 27  June 2014 of the 
2014–2020  European  Union  structural  support  administration  working  group,  established  in  accordance  with  Order  No  1K-243  of  11 
July 2013  of  the  Lithuanian  Minister  for  Finance  on  the  establishment  of  a  working  group)),  and  at  project  level  (by  completing  the 
check sheet for project compliance with State aid rules (the template for the check sheet on project compliance with State aid rules is 
approved by ministries together with the project financing conditions on the basis of check sheet templates provided by the managing 
body, or the check sheet template on project compliance with de minimis aid rules approved under protocol No 17 of 24 April 2015 of 
the 2014–2020 European Union structural support administration working group). 

Education.  Complex  interpretation  of  European  Union  legislation  relating  to  State  aid  (Communication  from  the  Commission  – 
Framework for State aid for research and development and innovation, 27 June 2014 (2014/C 198/01) and Commission Regulation (EU) 
No 651/2014 of 17 June 2014 declaring certain categories of aid compatible with the internal market in application of Articles 107 and 
108 of the Treaty). Useful experience was gained from other EU Member States during international events and visits for sharing best 
practice. 

Simplified cost options are due to be used during the 2014–2020 financing period. Project expenditure can be reimbursement using the 
simplified  cost  option  where  unit  costs,  fixed  sums  or  flat  rates  are  applied.  Paragraph  428  of  the  2014–2020  RAFP  states  that 
expenditure reimbursed using the simplified cost option is eligible for financing if the possibility of using the simplified cost option was 
stipulated in advance (before the conclusion of the project agreement) in the project financing conditions, clearly indicating the area of 
application  of  the  simplified  cost  option.  Adequate  preparation  for  the  use  of  simplified  costs  helps  ensure  that  expenditure  incurred 
during project implementation is recognised as eligible for financing. 

314 

Question 1.1.3. 

Good 
practices 
and  examples  of 
success  stories  in 
of 
areas 
the 
compliance  with 
EU  and  national 
eligibility 
rules, 
compliance  with 
EU  and  national 
public 

 
 
 
 
procurement 
legislation, 
and 
compliance  with 
State aid rules. 

Question 1.2.1. 

Further  measures 
the 
enhance 
to 
effectiveness of the 
checks  carried  out 
before 
declaring 
certifying 
or 
expenditure  to  the 
Commission. 

In  order  to  improve  the  effectiveness  of  on-the-spot  checks  in  Lithuania,  provision  is  made  for  risk  management  control  measures  to 
facilitate verification of their correct implementation. Under national legislation governing the administration and financing of European 
Union  Structural  Funds  on-the-spot  checks  of  each  project  are  mandatory  at  least  once  during  their  implementation  period  (the  only 
exceptions being cases where assurance can be obtained through the results achieved (e.g. documents drawn up, etc.) without visiting the 
site, or using a selective method agreed with the managing body or the certifying body).  

The internal procedures of intermediate bodies, governing all the functions of those bodies and the control measures to be carried out, are 
subject  to  continual  monitoring  and  improvement,  taking  into  account  the  shortcomings  identified  by  the  bodies  themselves, 
amendments to legislation and the observations of the audit authority and other observations made during the course of inspections. The 
check sheets designed to be completed during the course of inspections and while conducting on-the-spot checks are detailed, separating 
out each individual aspect of eligibility, and require the action taken to be not only stipulated, but also described (what was evaluated 
and/or  checked  while  carrying  out  the  action).  The  check  sheets  provide  detailed  instructions  to  employees  with  the  aim  of  ensuring 
uniform  interpretation  of  the  questions.  As  with  the  internal  procedures,  check  sheets  are  subject  to  continual  monitoring  and 
improvement with a view to maximum possible identification of discrepancies.  

For the purpose of monitoring the functions assigned to intermediate bodies, representatives of the managing body can take part in on-
the-spot checks at the site of project implementation and/or administration together with the employees of the implementing body so as 
to  gain  assurance  that  the  implementing  body  is  conducting  inspections  appropriately.  No  significant  discrepancies  were  identified 
during inspections conducted in 2015.  

Inspections  and  on-the-spot  project  checks  by  intermediate  bodies  (implementing  bodies)  are  complemented  by  various  measures  for 
preventing  infringements  and  reducing  risk  (e.g.  training  for  applicants  and  project  promotors,  preliminary  inspection  of  selected 
documents, consultations, etc.), with the aim of informing project promotors at the earliest possible stage about any requirements they 
must comply with and the possible negative consequences in the event of non-compliance. 

For the purpose of enabling further checks on the transparency of decisions adopted, amendments to the 2014–2020 RAFP are currently 
being  initiated,  enabling  public  representatives  to  participate  in  on-the-spot  checks  at  the  site  of  project  implementation  and/or 

315 

 
 
administration . 

Question 1.2.2. 

Further  measures 
the 
to 
enhance 
of 
effectiveness 
actions 
to  detect 
and  correct  errors 
concerning 
expenditure, which 
previously 
was 
or 
declared 
certified 
the 
to 
Commission. 

With the aim of identifying and rectifying errors relating to expenditure previously declared to the European Commission or previously 
certified,  the  managing  body  sends  to  the  certifying  body  a  statement  on  the  functioning  of  the  EU  2007–2013  structural  support 
management and control system, on the compliance of expenditure to be declared with the rules laid down in Community and national 
legislation  and  on  the  procedures  and  inspections  conducted  by  the  managing  body  relating  to  expenditure  indicated  on  expenditure 
declarations (using the form approved under Order No 1K-013 of 26 January 2009 of the Lithuanian Minister for Finance approving the 
form for the report of expenditure to be recognised as declarable to the European Commission, the statement on the functioning of the 
EU  structural  support  management  and  control  system,  the  compliance  of  expenditure  to  be  declared  with  the  rules  laid  down  in 
Community  and  national  legislation,  and  the  procedures  and  inspections  conducted  by  the  managing  body  relating  to  expenditure 
indicated  on  declarations  of  expenditure)  (the  MCS  statement),  the  provisions  of  which  have  been  coordinated  with  Commission 
Regulation (EC) No 1828/2006 of 8 December 2006 setting out rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 1083/2006 
laying down general provisions on the European Regional Development Fund, the European Social Fund and the Cohesion Fund and of 
Regulation (EC) No 1080/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council on the European Regional Development Fund (OJ L 371, 
27 December 2006, p. 1). 

When  completing  the  MCS  statement,  the  managing  body  verifies  the  information  logged  in  the  information  system  (SFMIS)  on  the 
implementation  of  recommendations  made  during  management  and  control  system  audits  by  the  European  Court  of  Auditors,  the 
European Commission, the audit authority and other authorities and/or undertakings, and investigations into alleged infringements. The 
MCS  statement  must  indicate  whether  any  substantial  errors  were  observed  relating  to  expenditure  recognised  as  declarable  to  the 
European  Commission  when  analysing  reports  on  management  and  control  system  audits  by  the  European  Court  of  Auditors,  the 
European  Commission,  the  audit  authority  and  other  authorities  and/or  undertakings,  including  draft  reports  provided  in  official 
correspondence, which would affect the declaration of expenditure to the Commission, and the actions taken to rectify these errors. 

With  the  aim  of  ensuring  that  only  eligible  expenditure  is  declared  to  the  Commission,  the  managing  body  cooperates  with  the  law 
enforcement  authorities  (e.g.  the  Special  Investigation  Service,  the  Financial  Crime  Investigation  Service),  which  keep  the  managing 
body  informed  about  any  pre-trial  investigations  they  are  conducting.  The  MCS  statement  must  present  all  information  held  by  the 
managing  authority  received  through  official  correspondence  and  via  the  Lithuanian  electronic  service  portal  www.eteismas.lt,  and 
published on the websites of law enforcement authorities (the Special Investigation Service, the Financial Crime Investigation Service) 
and in electronic news media, relating to ongoing legal proceedings, their progress and results, and pre-trial investigations by the Special 
Investigation Service and the Financial Crime Investigation Service. 

Pursuant to the entitlement accorded under paragraph 70 of the Rules on the administration and financing of operational programmes, 
approved  under  Lithuanian  Government  Resolution  No  1225  of  12 November 2008,  the  certifying  body  withdraws  (reduces)  certain 
expenditure  and/or  does  not  declare  it  if,  in  view  of  the  information  in  its  possession  on  identified  and  unresolved  infringements,  the 
results of its inspections, and the observations and recommendations made during audits by the audit authority, the European  Court of 
Auditors and the European Commission, it cannot endorse the expenditure as declarable to the European Commission. 

316 

 
 
On the basis of the proven practices of the 2007–2013 programming period, a similar administration system and requirements are being 
applied in the 2014–2020 programming period, i.e. an MCS statement and other documents are received from the managing body, and 
the certifying body, when drawing up interim payment applications to the European Commission under paragraph 160 of the Rules for 
the administration of the 2014–2020 Operational programme for Investments from European Union Funds, approved under Lithuanian 
Government  Resolution  No  1090  of  3 October 2014  (the  Rules  on  OP  administration),  taking  into  account  the  information  in  its 
possession on expenditure which is allegedly ineligible for financing and/or for declaration to the Commission, reduces the amount of 
expenditure declared to the Commission and/or does not declare to the Commission new expenditure included in documents submitted to 
the  bodies;  and  when  drawing  up  accounts  for  the  Commission  under  paragraph  171  of  the  Rules  on  OP  administration,  taking  into 
account  the  information  in  its  possession  on  expenditure  which  is  allegedly  ineligible  for  financing  and/or  declaration  to  the 
Commission, the recoverable funds identified, suspected and/or identified and unresolved infringements relating to expenditure declared 
to the Commission during the reference year, the results of its own and the managing and implementing bodies’ inspections, the results 
of  audits  and/or  inspections  by  the  audit  authority,  the  European  Court  of  Auditors,  the  European  Commission  and  other  authorities, 
reduces, by the amount of the alleged ineligible expenditure, the amount of project expenditure declared on payment applications to the 
European Commission and included in the bodies’ annual accounts for the reference year submitted to the certifying body. 

In  order  to  improve  the  effectiveness  of  checks  on  payment  requests  in  Lithuania,  provision  is  made  for  risk  management  control 
measures to facilitate verification of their correct implementation.  

On a national level, the implementing body is responsible for checks on payment requests, the verification of all supporting  and proof-
of-payment documents and determination of financing eligibility. 

The  checking  and  approval  of  payment  requests  is  carried  out  in  accordance  with  the  description  of  the  procedure  for  checking  and 
approving payment requests approved by the implementing body and with the principles of sound financial management (paragraph 123 
the 2014–2020 RAFP).  

As  already  indicated  in  paragraph  1.1.3,  during  the 2014–2020  financing  period  national  legislation  lays  down  that  when  drawing  up 
plans for priority implementing measures under the 2014–2020 Operational programme for Investments from the European Union Funds 
and laying down project financing conditions, all intermediate bodies must assess the possibility of applying the simplified cost option to 
projects.  During  the  2014–2020  financing  period  a  flat  rate  schedule  has  been  laid  down  for  indirect  expenditure  for  projects  funded 
from the EU Structural Funds (project administration expenditure) (Annex 10 to Order No 1K-316 of 8 October 2014 of the Lithuanian 
Minister for Finance on the approval of the rules for the administration and financing of projects). All indirect  expenditure for projects 
will be funded only on the basis of a flat rate.  

The 2014–2020 RAFP (paragraph 280) stipulates that project financing cannot be paid to a project promotor further to a final payment 
request unless the implementing body has conducted an on-the-spot check (except where such a check does not have to be conducted in 
accordance with legislative provisions). 

Question 1.3.1. 

Risk  analysis  and 
estimated  level  of 
error  in  the  major 
EU spending areas 
(common 
agricultural 
policy, 
regional 
and  urban  policy, 
employment, 
social  affairs  and 
inclusion). 

317 

 
 
 
Question 1.3.2. 

See response to question 1.3.1. 

Relationship 
between  the  basis 
for  payment  and 
levels  of  error  in 
the  major  EU 
spending 
areas 
(common 
agricultural 
regional 
policy, 
and  urban  policy, 
employment, 
social  affairs  and 
inclusion). 

Question 2.1.1. 

Links  between  EU 
the 
in 
priorities 
context 
the 
of 
Europe 2020 
strategy,  including 
Horizon 2020,  and 
national priorities. 

The  Ministry  of  Education  and  Science  notes  that,  in  accordance  with  the  European  Commission’s  figures  for  September  2016,  the 
success rate for participation by Lithuanian participants in Horizon 2020 (H2020) projects is around 11 per cent, while the EU Member 
State average is 14 per cent.  

In  an  endeavour  to  encourage  participants  from  Lithuania  to  participate  more  actively  in  H2020  projects,  the  following  measures  are 
being implemented: 

  To  invite  expressions  of  interest  in  the  measure  ‘Spreading  of  excellence  and  widening  participation’  under  the  2014  EU 
Horizon  2020  Framework  Programme  for  Research  and  Innovation  (2014-2020),  the  Ministry  of  Education  and  Science,  in 
cooperation with the Research Council of Lithuania, prepared a preliminary call for applications, with the aim of harmonising 
H2020  and  national  priorities.    The  applicants  who  made  the  best  selected  preliminary  applications  (Kaunas  University  of 
Technology  and  the  Centre  for  Physical  Sciences  and  Technology)  were  granted  the  right  to  submit  their  applications  to  the 
European  Commission.  The  application  ‘Centre  of  Excellence  in  Science  and  Technology  for  Healthy  Ageing  (HEALTH-
TECH)’ by the consortium consisting of Kaunas University of Technology, the Lithuanian University of Health Sciences and the 
University of Vilnius reached the second stage.  

  Since 2014 the Research Council of Lithuania has been granting support to research and higher education institutions preparing 
H2020  applications.  The  amount  of  support  (ranging  from  EUR 597  to  5 792)  depends  on  the  applicant’s  role  in  the  H2020 
application, the means of making the application and the result of an assessment of the application.  

  2014 saw the launch of the Baltijos Bonus measure  aimed  at encouraging  research and higher education institutions from the 
Baltic countries to participate together in joint Horizon 2020 programme projects.  The Baltijos Bonus measure operates on the 
condition  that  if  the  project  has  at  least  one  partner  from  Latvia  or  Estonia,  EUR 1 000  is  granted  to  cover  the  costs  of 

318 

 
 
preparation.  The  measure  is  being  implemented  by  the  Agency  for  Science,  Innovation  and  Technology  (MITA)  using  funds 
from the Ministry of Education and Science.  

 

In 2016, the TYKU2 project is being implemented using EU Structural Fund financing, with the aim of enhancing the skills of 
scientists and other researchers from the research and business sectors and research managers (administrators responsible for the 
preparation  and  implementation  of  international  RD&I  projects)  which  are  necessary  for  initiating  and  administering 
international  RD&I  projects,  including  H2020  projects.  The  measure  is  being  administered  by  the  Ministry  of  Education  and 
Science and implemented by the MITA, with the Research Council of Lithuania acting as partner.  

  To encourage research and higher education institutions to prepare high-quality applications for H2020, in 2016 a measure was 
launched to cover the costs of obtaining consultancy services for the preparation of H2020 applications. The funds available for 
the preparation of each H2020 application are up to EUR 20 000 (including all taxes). This measure is being implemented by the 
MITA using funds from the Ministry of Education and Science. 

Planned measures aimed at encouraging Lithuania’s participants to increase their involvement in H2020 projects: 

  A draft Methodology for evaluating research (artistic) activity by research and higher education institutions is currently being 

drawn up. This measure aims to increase the basic financing for bodies coordinating H2020 projects. 

  A measure planned to be funded from EU Structural Funds – preparation of an international research cooperation itinerary. 

  On  the  basis  of  other  countries’  experience,  a  liaison  office  is  planned  to  be  established  in  Brussels  which  would  organise 
seminars,  provide  organisational  assistance  and  seek  out  contacts  for  the  purpose  of  enhancing  Lithuanian  research  on  an 
international level. 

When Lithuania became an EU Member State, it appointed representatives to the European Strategy Forum for Research Infrastructures 
(ESFRI), and it has been participating in this forum since 2004. Pursuant to the draft R&I development guidelines drawn up in 2010, in 
2011  the  Research  Council  of  Lithuania  compiled  and  published  the  first  Lithuanian  research  infrastructure  roadmap,  which  seeks  to 
establish national long-term R&I development strategy axes and priorities for Lithuanian national involvement in the European research 
infrastructures included in the ESFRI roadmap that are of relevance to the country.  In 2012 the Lithuanian Minister for Education and 
Science approved the description of the procedure for participation in international infrastructures. 

In 2014 the Research Council of Lithuania, at the request of the Ministry of Education and Science, updated this roadmap, bringing in 
new infrastructure projects. In updating the roadmap, experts from the Research Council also evaluated the correlation between all the 
national  infrastructures  and  Lithuania’s  smart  specialisation  priority  axes.  All  the  infrastructures  that  appear  in  the  updated  roadmap 
implement one or more smart specialisation priorities. 

In 2013–2014 Lithuania became a member of the European Social Survey European Research Infrastructure Consortium (ESS ERIC) 
and the Research Infrastructure Consortium for Common Language Resources and Technology (CLARIN ERIC). Since 2015 Lithuania 
has been participating in the European Molecular Biology Laboratory (EMBL) as an affiliated (prospective) member state, and in 2016 it 
became a member of the European Molecular Biology Conference (EMBC). The procedure for joining to the High – Luminosity Large 

319 

 
 
Hadron Collider HL-LHC (CERN programme) is also progressing successfully. 

According  to  the  Agency  for  Science,  Innovation  and  Technology,  the  first  priority  selected  under  the  2014–2020  Operational 
programme  for  Investments  from  the  European  Union  Funds  (the  Operational  programme)  is  Promotion  of  research,  experimental 
development  and  innovation.  This  is  designed  to  enhance  the  synergy  between  business,  studies  and  research,  and  is  being  used  to 
develop the country’s economic competitiveness. To this end investments are planned in the development of the infrastructure for public 
and  private  research,  experimental  development  and  innovation  (RD&I)  directly  relating  to  the  enhancement  of  competitiveness,  and 
linking it more closely to regional and European research infrastructure networks. RD&I financing aims to achieve more effective use of 
the  existing  RD&I  infrastructure  for  enhancing  economic  competitiveness,  and  also  more  active  engagement  of  Lithuanian  research 
potential  in  European  and  international  networks  of  research  institutions  and  researchers.  By  implementing  this  first  priority,  specific 
challenges are being addressed: more active use of the existing and newly evolving research, experimental development and innovation 
infrastructure,  enhancing  RD&I  activity  in  the  private  sector,  enhancing  the  degree  of  knowledge  commercialisation  and  technology 
transfer.  These challenges are linked to the priorities set out under  the H2020 programme, in  particular  the first and second priorities 
‘Excellent  Science’  and  ‘Industrial  leadership’,  which  promote  high-level  research  and  support  innovative  small  and  medium-sized 
business and research in the areas of industrial technologies. 

All  the  planned  investments  are  coordinated  with  the  needs  of  the  business  sector,  and  investments  in  RD&I  infrastructure  focus  on 
infrastructure necessary for the creation of new products and their establishment in the market. The necessary infrastructure is also being 
created  to  enable  effective  experimental  development  and  to  enhance  the  scope  of  marketable  research  results;  investments  are  being 
made in infrastructure aimed engaging Lithuania in European infrastructures. In working towards these aims, as recommended by the 
European Commission, not only are European Structural and Investment funds being consolidated, but use is also being made of other 
initiatives, including the Horizon 2020 programme. 

As  is  the  case  in  the  Europa  2020  strategy,  the  2014–2020  National  Progress  Programme,  approved  under  Lithuanian  Government 
Resolution No 1482 of 28 November 2012, presents a research and technological development intensity indicator, with the aim being to 
increase  Lithuania’s  investments  in  RD&I  to  1.9 %  of  the  gross  domestic  product  by  2020.  Under  the  Horizon  2020  programme  this 
performance indicator is 3 %.  With a view to focusing on performance, a variety of indicators have been established for monitoring the 
implementation of the operational programme’s first priority, for example ‘Business sector expenditure on R&D per inhabitant’, Patent 
applications by research and study institutions’, ‘Number of researchers working in improved research infrastructure facilities’, etc. 

Question 2.1.2. 

to 
synergies 

Measures 
pursue 
and 
complementarities 
ESI 
between 

The  Lithuanian  Partnership  Agreement  addresses  the  coordination  mechanism  for  the  ESI  Funds  and  other  EU  and  national  financial 
instruments (Horizon 2020, Europa 2020, etc.).  

With  the  aim  of  making  more  effective  use  of  the  possibilities  offered  by  the  ESI  Funds,  monitoring  is  undertaken  of  the 
complementarity  of  the  ESI  Funds  with  appropriate  national  strategic  programmes  financed  from  the  national  budget.  In  2012  the 
Lithuanian  Government  approved  the  National  Progress  Programme  (NPP)  which  is  designed  to  implement  the  National  progress 
strategy ‘Lietuva 2030’. This programme incorporates not only the most important provisions of national policy, but also the  main EU 

320 

 
 
 
and 

Funds 
national 
programmes . 

policy provisions set out in the Europe 2020 strategy. It also includes all sources of financing, i.e. not only ESI Funds, but also other 
sources  of  financing,  including  the  national  budget.  NPP  priority  coordinators  must  ensure  that  the  implementation  of  priorities  is 
monitored,  and  all  the  institutions  responsible  for  implementing  specific  objectives,  analysis  of  the  achievement  of  evaluation  criteria 
targets,  and  entry  of  factual  data  in  the  monitoring  information  system  are  involved  in  this  monitoring.  The  2014–2020  Operational 
programme for Investments from the European Union Funds was drawn up on the basis of the NPP. 

For the 2014–2020 financing period, where intermediate bodies have planned specific measures implementing the aims and objectives 
laid  down  in  an  operational  programme,  the  managing  body  has  conducted  an  evaluation  of  each  measure's  compliance  with  the 
objectives  and  results  set  out  in  the  operational  programme.  In  accordance  with  the  requirements  of  national  legislation,  during  the 
evaluation  of  each  project  a  selection  criterion  must  be  applied  in  common  to  all  projects,  i.e.  the  project’s  compliance  with  the 
objectives  and  results  laid  down  in  the  operational  programme.  The  selection  criteria  endorsed  by  the  monitoring  committee  help  to 
ensure the impact of projects and achievement  of the results set out in the operational programme. When intermediate bodies present 
selection criteria for endorsement, the managing authority verifies whether applying the criteria will result in the selection of projects 
that will make the best contribution towards achieving the operational programme’s priority objective and its results. 

Question 2.2.1. 

Performance 
measurement 
system  to  link  EU 
measures, 
operations 
projects 
priorities/Europe 
2020 
and targets. 

or 
to  EU 

objectives 

Question 2.2.2. 

Framework for the 
of 
management 
ESI 
in 
Funds 
order  to  achieve  a 
result-oriented 
system  and  impact 
of EU projects. 

An indicator system has been created in Lithuania, incorporating the indicators laid down for an operational programme, as selected on 
the basis of European Commission methodological documents, and also the national indicators that supplement operational programme 
indicators where these do not cover all the interventions planned under the operational programme. The provisions of national legislation 
require all projects to achieve at least one product or result indicator.  Projects make extensive use of not only product indicators, but 
also result indicators.  

The achievement of the indicators set for a given operational programme is subject to continual monitoring. The Lithuanian Government 
has  approved  an  annual  plan  for  the  attainment  of  the  activity  review  indicators  set  out  in  the  operational  programme,  in  which  the 
attainment of activity review indicators is scheduled for each individual year over the entire financing period. The intermediate bodies 
draw up quarterly plans for the attainment of the indicators set out in the operational programme activity review plan. Each  quarter the 
managing body evaluates the status of and risks relating to the attainment of these indicators and delivers reports to the Government with 
proposed  measures  necessary  for  attaining  the  indicators.  Each  year  when  preparing  annual  implementation  reports  for  the  European 
Commission, the attainment status is analysed for each of the indicators under the operational programme. 

With the aim of evaluating the impact of the interventions and identifying improvement measures, an evaluation plan is drawn up for the 
entire programming period, in which evaluations are planned covering all the priorities of the operational programme. 

Question 2.2.3. 

Yes. 

Member 
State 
actions  to  define 

An indicator system has been created in Lithuania, incorporating the indicators laid down for operational programmes, as selected on the 
basis  of  European  Commission  methodological  documents,  and  also  the  national  indicators  that  supplement  operational  programme 

321 

 
 
or  improve  result 
indicators  at  EU 
project level. 

indicators where these do not cover all the interventions planned under the operational programme. The provisions of national legislation 
require all projects to achieve at least one product or result indicator. Indicators planned under a given project are included in contracts 
with the project promotors and are deemed contractual obligations. Projects make extensive use of not only product indicators, but also 
result  indicators.  The  financing  terms  and  conditions  of  projects  lay  down  mandatory  requirements  relating  to  the  attainment  of 
individual indicators, making it an obligation for projects to attain certain indicators or their minimum values. National legislation also 
provides for financial corrections where project promotors fail to attain indicators. 

During  the  2014–2020  financing  period  a  report  must  be  drawn  up  for  each  project  on  the  implementation  of  project  activities  and 
attainment of indicators no less than once each quarter during the implementation of the project and no less than once a year following 
the project’s completion. Funds are not disbursed during the course of a project until the implementing body has confirmed the project 
promotor’s report on the implementation of project activities and the attainment of indicators. All information is stored in the IT system 
SFMIS, which enables the continual monitoring of indicators at both project and programme level. 

In the area of education, Order No V-1109 of 25 November 2014 by the Minister for Education and Science approved the description of 
the  procedure  for  the  monitoring  and  evaluation  of  the  implementation  of  priorities  administered  by  the  Lithuanian  Ministry  of 
Education and Science under the 20142020 Operational programme for Investments from European Union Structural Funds, which sets 
out the procedures in question. 

Question 2.2.4. 

Performance 
measurement 
system  to  monitor 
the 
achievement 
objectives  at  EU 
measure, 
operations 
or 
project  level  and 
to  monitor 
the 
output  and  result 
indicators  at  EU 
measure, 
operations 
project level. 

or 

Question 3.1.1. 

Yes. 

for 

Framework  or  a 
system 
the 
follow-up of ECA's 
recommendations 
to 
addressed 
Member  States  in 
annual 
Court's 
and 
special 
reports. 
and 
Monitoring 
reporting 
on 
progress  achieved 

ESIF: The procedure for monitoring and improving the management and control system is laid down in legislation governing the 2014–
2020 financing period (as was the case during the previous financing period). In accordance with the Rules on OP administration, the 
managing, certifying and intermediate bodies are responsible under the terms of their remit for resolving shortcomings in the operation 
of the management and control system and improving the system. The Rules on OP administration lay down the measures to be taken by 
bodies with regard to implementing the recommendations made during management and control system audits and audits of expenditure 
declared to the European Commission conducted by the audit authority, the European Court of Auditors and the European Commission.  

The Rules on OP administration also lay down the procedure for registering in the SFMIS information on the recommendations made 
during management  and control system audits by the European Court of Auditors, the European Commission,  the audit authority and 
other authorities and/or undertakings and the implementation of those recommendations.  

After evaluating the compliance of the management and control system authorities’ internal system with the statutory requirements, the 
managing authority verifies that the internal procedures of intermediate bodies lay down actions and measures to be taken by the bodies 

322 

 
 
 
towards 
to 
implementation  of 
Court's 
recommendations 

with  respect  to  observations  and/or  shortcomings  identified  and  recommendations  made  during  audits  by  the  European  Court  of 
Auditors,  the  European  Commission,  the  audit  authority,  etc.,  and  clarifications  and  recommendations  by  the  managing  authority  (for 
example,  appropriate  cooperation  between  and  within  bodies;  preparation  of  plans  for  the  implementation  of  recommendations; 
provision  of  information  to  bodies  regarding  the  implementation  of  recommendations  (including  provision  of  information  to  the 
managing authority about the implementation of recommendations by the European Commission, the European Court of Auditors and 
the  audit  authority);  and  the  procedure  and  timeframes  for  entering  information  on  the  implementation  of  recommendations  in  the 
SFMIS, etc.).  

Agricultural expenditure: Analyses of annual and special reports are conducted at the National Paying Agency (NPA) and, where any 
observations are made relating to the operation of the NPA, action plans are drawn up. However, action plans are frequently prepared 
following  audit  missions  or  after  the  receipt  of  observations.  We  notify  the  implementation  of  recommendations  in  reply  to  letters 
regarding  observations  or  requests  for  information  on  the  status  of  the  implementation  of  recommendations.  Observations  and 
recommendations are also incorporated in Lithuania’s action plan for reducing the rate of errors, updated versions of which are regularly 
sent to the European Commission. 

323 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Luxembourg 

Question 1.1.1 

Main  root  causes  in 
the 
EU 
major 
areas 
spending 
(common  agricultural 
policy,  regional  and 
urban 
policy, 
social 
employment, 
affairs  and  inclusion) 
for the persisting risks 
and errors pointed out 
by the ECA. 

N.B.:  pour  votre  réponse,  vous  pouvez 
recourir  à  la  liste  non  exhaustive  de  causes 
profondes  des  erreurs  de  légalité  et  de 
régularité  dans  les  dépenses  de  l'UE  qui 
figure  ci-après  (les  questions  liées  à  la 
réalisation  des  objectifs  politiques  et  à  la 
valeur  ajoutée  sont  abordées  à  la  question 2 
ci-dessous).  En  conséquence,  nous  vous 
prions  de  bien  vouloir  indiquer  dans  quelle 
mesure  les  exemples  cités  sont  pertinents 
pour votre pays pour chaque grand domaine 
de  dépenses  de  l'UE  (politique  agricole 
commune;  politique  régionale  et  urbaine; 
emploi,  affaires  sociales  et  inclusion),  et  en 
outre,    de  développer  votre  réponse  à  la 
question 1.1.1 ci-dessous: 

 

le  nombre  et  la  complexité  des  règles  et 
la surréglementation 

Sans objet 

Plutôt pertinent  Assez pertinent 

Totalement 
pertinent 

FSE 

FEDER/FEAGA, 
FEADER 

 

transposition 
la 

la 
national  de 
applicable 

incorrecte  en  droit 
l'UE 
législation  de 

FSE/FEDER/FEAGA, 
FEADER 

 

le non-respect des exigences juridiques et 
procédurales  découlant  de  la  législation 

FSE 

FEDER/FEAGA, 

324 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
et des règles nationales et de l'UE 

 

le degré de connaissance pour appliquer 
les  règles  relatives  aux  marchés  publics 
ou  aux  aides  d'État 
et  d'autres 
législations et règles de l'UE applicables 
(notamment, les conditions et les critères 
d'éligibilité  en  ce  qui  concerne 
les 
mesures  de  développement  rural,  les 
options  de  coûts  simplifiés,  le  caractère 
raisonnable  des  coûts,  les  paiements 
agroenvironnementaux  axés 
les 
résultats) 

sur 

 

la complexité des règles d'éligibilité 

 

les  faiblesses  affectant  l'ensemble  des 
peuvent 
règles 
déboucher 
éventuel 
un 
contournement de celles-ci 

d'éligibilité, 

qui 

sur 

FEADER 

FSE/FEAGA, 
FEADER 

FEDER 

FSE 

FEDER 

FEDER/FEAGA, 
FEADER 

FSE/FEAGA, 
FEADER 

 

la  qualité  et  l'actualisation  insuffisantes 
du  système  d’identification  des  parcelles 
agricoles (SIPA) 

FSE/ FEAGA, 
FEADER 

 

les erreurs dans les demandes d'aides 

FSE 

 

la  persistance  des  risques  de  mauvaise 
interprétation  de  ce  qu'est  la  surface 
éligible  pour  le  régime  de  paiement  de 
base  

FSE/FEDER 

 FEAGA, 

FEADER 

 FEAGA, 

FEADER 

 

l'inefficacité  du  mécanisme  de  sanction 
ou  la  faiblesse  du  niveau  de  sanction  en 

FSE 

FEDER/ 

FEAGA, 

325 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
FEDER 

FEADER 

FSE/ FEAGA, 
FEADER 

FSE/ FEAGA, 
FEADER 

FEDER 

FSE 

FEDER 

 FEAGA, 

FEADER 

cas de non-respect 

 

 

 

de 

prévoir 

d'organiser 

une 
nécessité 
la 
sensibilisation, 
des 
formations  ciblées  et  de  développer  et 
fournir  un  soutien  et  des  conseils 
méthodologiques  détaillés  en  faveur  des 
autorités  nationales  et  régionales  et  des 
bénéficiaires finals 

la  nécessité  d'accroître  ou  d'améliorer 
les  ressources  et  de  renforcer 
les 
capacités administratives 

la  nécessité  d'améliorer 
la  qualité 
d'aspects  essentiels  des  systèmes  de 
surveillance  et  de  contrôle  (meilleure 
conception  et/ou  exécution  des  contrôles 
administratifs et contrôles sur place et/ou 
efficacité accrue des travaux réalisés lors 
des  vérifications  de  gestion  et  par  les 
autorités d'audit, les organismes payeurs 
et les organismes de certification) 

  une meilleure utilisation des informations 
requises  en  matière  de  détection  et  de 
correction  qui  sont  disponibles  dans  les 
documents justificatifs ainsi qu'au niveau 
du  bénéficiaire  ou  d'un  organisme 
national ou régional 

FSE/FEDER 

 FEAGA, 

FEADER 

 

de 

plans 

l'élaboration 
d'action 
suffisamment  solides  pour  remédier  aux 
causes  des  erreurs  et  aux  lacunes  des 
systèmes  de  gestion  et  de  contrôle  et/ou 
aux  défaillances  dans  les  dépenses  de 

FSE 

FEDER 

 FEAGA, 

FEADER 

326 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 

 

l'UE 

modifications 
de 
l'introduction 
insuffisantes  par  les  nouveaux  cadres 
légaux 
et/ou 
procéduraux,  susceptibles  d'avoir  une 
incidence  notable  sur  les  causes  des 
erreurs 

réglementaires 

et/ou 

la  nécessité  de 
lancer  davantage 
d'initiatives  en  vue  de  garantir  une 
les 
véritable 
bénéficiaires 
des 
programmes 

pour 
l'exécution 

simplification 

et 

le  partage  des  connaissances  et  des 
expériences  et  la  diffusion  de  bonnes 
pratiques  au  niveau  national  et/ou  de 
l'UE  sur  la  façon  de  remédier  aux 
faiblesses/déficiences/erreurs courantes 

FSE/FEDER 

 FEAGA, 

FEADER 

FSE 

FEDER/ 

FEAGA, 
FEADER 

FSE/FEDER 

 FEAGA, 

FEADER 

 

les  résultats  attendus  d'actions  qui  ne 
seront pas toujours visibles à court terme 

FSE/FEDER 

 FEAGA, 

FEADER 

327 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Question 1.1.2. 

Réponse FSE : 

Main  lessons  learned 
while  addressing  the 
risks  and  errors  for 
the EU spending. 

Pour  le  FSE,  une  simplification  des  règles  d’éligibilité  notamment  par  une  restructuration  des  règles  nationales,  l’application  des 
OCS, le contact direct et l’échange continu avec les porteurs de projets lors des différentes phases des projets (candidature, mise en 
place, réalisation, …). 

Réponse FEDER : 

Les  bénéficiaires  ont  été  sensibilisés  davantage  sur  l’importance  du  respect  des  règles  précitées,  y  compris  la  nécessité  d’un 
renforcement interne de leurs compétences en la matière. Ceci se fait idéalement dans le cadre d’un processus d’accompagnement 
des bénéficiaires par l’AG, donnant lieu à des échanges d’informations ainsi que des réunions d’information et de suivi. 

Réponse FEAGA, FEADER : 

Dans la mesure du possible prévoir une réglementation simple, claire avec des engagements contrôlables. 

Prévoir  les  ressources  (ressources  humaines,  informatiques,  …)  nécessaires  pour  la  gestion  des  mesures  ainsi  que  le  contrôle  des 
engagements. 

Question 1.1.3. 

Réponse FSE : 

Good  practices  and 
examples  of  success 
stories  in  the  areas  of 
compliance  with  EU 
and national eligibility 
rules, compliance with 
national 
EU 
public 
procurement 
and 
legislation, 
compliance  with  State 
aid rules. 

and 

Pour  le  FSE,  une  simplification  des  règles  d’éligibilité  notamment  par  une  restructuration  des  règles  nationales,  l’application  des 
OCS, le contact direct et l’échange continu avec les porteurs de projets lors des différentes phases des projets (candidature, mise en 
place, réalisation, …). 

Réponse FEDER : 

Les AGs organisent plus de réunions d’informations et de suivi. Les réunions « transversales », dans lesquelles sont représentées les 
différentes  AGs,  ACs  et  l’AA,  permettent  aux  participants  un  échange  de  connaissances  et  d’expériences,  voire  de  trouver  des 
solutions à des problèmes précis. Il a aussi été jugée nécessaire d’élaborer plus de notes d’informations. 

Réponse FEAGA, FEADER : 

Mise en place d’un système anti-fraude : 

  Procédure de droit de jouissance,  
  Création d’un service à part qui s’occupe de la gestion et du suivi des irrégularités, 
  Déclaration de conflit d’intérêts pour agents de l’Organisme Payeur des Fonds Agricoles, 
  Formations régulières (p.ex. Anti-Fraude) 
  Procédure de « whistleblowing ». 

De manière générale : Définir des procédures précises pour la gestion des mesures ainsi que le contrôle des engagements.  

328 

 
 
Question 1.2.1. 

Réponse FSE : 

Further  measures  to 
the 
enhance 
effectiveness  of 
the 
checks 
carried  out 
before  declaring  or 
certifying  expenditure 
to the Commission. 

Pour  le  FSE  au  Luxembourg,  un  contrôle  ex-ante  à  100%  sur  pièces  et  sur  place  est  effectué  avant  la  certification.  De  plus,  une 
réunion de mise en place  entre l’autorité de  gestion et le porteur de projet est tenue avant le démarrage  du projet pour clarifier le 
fonctionnement du FSE et les règles d’éligibilité. 

Réponse FEDER : 

La  formulation  de  ce  constat  semble  exagérée  vu  le  taux  d’erreur  très  faible.  Néanmoins  les  AGs  s’efforcent  de  procéder  à  des 
contrôles plus ciblés et de mieux documenter leurs contrôles. L’AA va scruter d’avantage ces contrôles. 

Réponse FEAGA, FEADER : 

Mise en place d’un système anti-fraude :  

  Note d’orientation pour les gestionnaires de primes en vue d’une prévention de fraude dans le secteur agricole,  

  Procédure en cas de détection d’une irrégularité,  

  Procédure de droit de jouissance,  

  Création d’un service à part qui s’occupe de la gestion et du suivi des irrégularités, 

  Déclaration de conflit d’intérêts pour agents de l’Organisme Payeur des Fonds Agricoles, 

  Formations régulières (p.ex. Anti-Fraude). 

Question 1.2.2. 

Réponse FSE : 

Further  measures  to 
the 
enhance 
of 
effectiveness 
actions  to  detect  and 
correct 
errors 
concerning 
which 
expenditure, 
was 
previously 
declared  or  certified 
to the Commission. 

Pour le FSE, le Luxembourg est en train d’implémenter l’outil ARACHNE, ce qui devrait encore davantage accroître l’efficacité de 
son système. 

Réponse FEDER : 

L’AG va cibler d’avantage ses contrôles sur ce type d’erreurs. La checklist sera mise à jour afin de mieux tenir compte de ce risque. 

Réponse FEAGA, FEADER : 

  Procédure de « whistleblowing » 

Question 1.3.1. 

Réponse FSE : 

Risk 

analysis 

and 

Pour  le  FSE  au  Luxembourg,  une  réunion  de  mise  en  place  entre  l’autorité  de  gestion  et  le  porteur  de  projet  est  tenue  avant  le 

329 

 
 
level 

estimated 
of 
error in the major EU 
areas 
spending 
(common  agricultural 
policy,  regional  and 
urban 
policy, 
social 
employment, 
affairs and inclusion). 

démarrage du projet pour clarifier le fonctionnement du FSE et les règles d’éligibilité. 

Réponse FEDER : 

Il est rappelé que le niveau d’erreur a été très faible pour le FEDER et le FSE. (taux d’erreur : de 0,00%, respectivement 0,48% pour 
les dépenses 2015). 

Réponse FEAGA, FEADER : 

Les  gestionnaires  des  mesures  sont  tenus  d’établir  une  évaluation  des  risques  des  mesures  qui  leur  sont  attribuées.  Ceci  fait 
également partie du  
système  anti-fraude.  L’échantillonnage  tiré  pour  les  contrôles  sur  place  tient  également  compte  de  cette 
analyse de risque. 

Question 1.3.2. 

Oui. 

Réponse FEDER 

Il semble, correct suivant le rapport annuel 2015 de la CCE (Chapitre 1, point 1.47)  

Réponse FEAGA, FEADER : 

Les mesures liées à des engagements multiples et complexes sont souvent affectées d’un niveau d’erreur plus élevé. 

Relationship  between 
the  basis  for  payment 
and  levels  of  error  in 
the 
EU 
major 
spending 
areas 
(common  agricultural 
policy,  regional  and 
policy, 
urban 
employment, 
social 
affairs and inclusion). 

Question 2.1.1. 

Réponse FSE : 

in 
of 

Links  between  EU 
the 
priorities 
context 
the 
Europe 2020  strategy, 
including 
Horizon 2020, 
national priorities. 

and 

Pour  le  FSE  au  Luxembourg,  le  Programme  opérationnel  a  été  élaboré  de  sorte  à  refléter  les  objectifs  nationaux  en  termes  de 
stratégie Europe 2020. La complémentarité des projets et budgets au niveau national et européen permet de renforcer les objectifs 
visés par le FSE. Un accord de partenariat avec les autres fonds structurels a également permis de définir une approche cohérente en 
termes de dépenses efficaces et efficientes. 

Réponse FEDER : 

Cette question est à voir avec les autorités de gestion. 

Réponse FEAGA, FEADER : 

Stratégie  2020  de 
thématiques (OT) 

l’UE  Objectifs 

Priorité des différents fonds lié aux OT 

330 

 
 
OT1. 
Recherche, 
technologique et innovation  

développement 

FEDER : 1-a. Développement d’infrastructures de  R&I et de capacités pour favoriser 
l’excellence en R&I, et promotion de centres de compétences. 

OT3. Compétitivité des PME  

FEDER  :  1-b.  Promotion  des  investissements  en  R&I  et  développement  de  liens  et 
synergies entre entreprises en particulier, centre de recherche et éducation supérieure, du 
développement  de  produits  et  services,  de  transferts  de  technologie,  de  l’innovation 
sociale  et  des  applications  de  services  publics,  de  la  stimulation  de  la  demande,  des 
réseaux. Des regroupements et de l’innovation ouverte par la spécialisation intelligente.  

FEADER  :  2-a.  Faciliter  la  restructuration  des  exploitations  agricoles  connaissant 
d’importants problèmes structurels, notamment les exploitations agricoles à faible degré 
de participation au marché, les exploitations orientées vers le marché dans des secteurs 
particuliers et les exploitations ayant besoin de diversification agricole.  

FEADER  :  2-b.  Faciliter  le  renouvellement  des  générations  dans  le  secteur  de 
l'agriculture. 

OT4.  Energie 
émissions de CO2  

et 

réduction  des 

FEDER  4-a.  En  favorisant  la  production  et  la  distribution  d’énergies  provenant  de 
sources renouvelables.  

FEDER : 4-c. Soutenir la transition vers une économie à faible émission de carbone en 
soutenant l’efficacité énergétique, la gestion intelligente de l’énergie et l’utilisation des 
énergies renouvelables dans les infrastructures publiques, y compris dans les bâtiments 
publics, et dans le secteur du logement.  

FEDER  4-e.  En  favorisant  des  stratégies  de  développement  à  faibles  émissions  de 
carbone pour tous les types de territoires, en particulier les zones urbaines, y compris la 
promotion  de  la  mobilité  urbaine  multimodale  durable  et  de  mesures  d’adaptation  au 
changement climatique destinées à l’atténuer. 

FEADER 5-d. réduire les émissions de gaz à effet de serre et d'ammoniac provenant de 
l'agriculture.  

OT6.  Environnement  et  utilisation  des  FEADER : 4-a. Restaurer et préserver la biodiversité, y compris dans les zones relevant 
de Natura 2000, les zones à contraintes naturelles et spécifiques, et les zones agricoles à 

331 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
ressources  

haute valeur naturelle, et les paysages européens.  

OT8. Marché de l’emploi  

OT9. Inclusion sociale et lutte contre la 
pauvreté  

FEADER : 4-b. Améliorer la gestion de l’eau. 

FEADER : 4-c. Améliorer la gestion des sols.    

FSE  : 1.1  L'accès  à l'emploi pour les demandeurs d'emploi et les personnes inactives, 
notamment  les  chômeurs  de  longue  durée  et  les  personnes  qui  se  trouvent  les  plus 
éloignées  du  marché  du  travail,  également  grâce  à  des  initiatives  locales  en  faveur  de 
l'emploi et au soutien à la mobilité professionnelle.  

FSE : 1.2 L'intégration durable sur le marché du travail des jeunes, en particulier ceux 
qui ne travaillent pas, ne font pas d'études ou ne suivent pas de formation, y compris les 
jeunes  exposés  à  l'exclusion  sociale  et  ceux  issus  de  groupes  marginalisés,  en  mettant 
notamment en œuvre la garantie pour la jeunesse.  

FSE : 2.1 L’inclusion active. 

:  6-a. 

FEADER 
le 
développement  de  petites  entreprises  en  région  ainsi  que  la  création  d’emplois  de 
proximité.  

la  diversification  socio-économique, 

inciter  et 

faciliter 

FEADER  :  6-b.  Promouvoir  et  coordonner  le  développement  intégré  local  dans  les 
zones rurales.  

OT10.  Education  et  formation  tout  au 
long de la vie  

FSE  :  3.1  Une  meilleure  égalité  d'accès  à  l'apprentissage  tout  au  long  de  la  vie  pour 
toutes  les  catégories  d'âges  dans  un  cadre  formel,  non  formel  ou  informel,  la  mise  à 
niveau  des  savoirs,  des  aptitudes  et  des  compétences  de  la  main-  d'œuvre  et  la 
promotion  de  parcours  d'apprentissage  souples  passant  notamment  par  une  orientation 
professionnelle et la validation des compétentes acquises.  

332 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Question 2.1.2. 

Réponse FSE : 

to  pursue 
and 

Measures 
synergies 
complementarities 
between  ESI  Funds 
and 
national 
programmes . 

Un  accord  de  partenariat  a  été  élaboré  pour  créer  une  approche  cohérente  et  des  synergies  entre  programmes.  Un  site  internet 
commun des différents programmes permet également de donner une présentation d’ensemble et ainsi de favoriser des synergies des 
différents fonds. 

Réponse FEDER : 

Echanges réguliers entre les Fonds et les programmes nationaux surtout en matière de RDI. 

Réponse FEAGA, FEADER : 

Elaboration de l’accord de partenariat. 

Création d’un groupe de travail multi-fond. 

Participation réciproque dans les comités de suivi des Fonds structurels. 

Question 2.2.1. 

Réponse FSE : 

Performance 
measurement 
system 
to  link  EU  measures, 
operations  or  projects 
EU 
to 
priorities/Europe 
2020  objectives  and 
targets. 

La sélection  des projets se fait notamment  en fonction  de  leur  capacité d’accueillir des participants répondant  aux spécificités des 
différents objectifs spécifiques du programme opérationnel.  

Une réunion  de  mise  en place est organisée pour chaque projet lors de laquelle des indicateurs de  performance  et de résultat  sont 
clairement établis ensemble avec le promoteur. Ces indicateurs sont mis à jour au fil du déroulement du projet. 

Les  données  financières  et  de  suivi  sont  rassemblées  semestriellement  au  niveau  des  opérations.  Leur  réalité  et  exactitude  sont 
vérifiées semestriellement sur base d’un contrôle ex ante à 100% sur pièce et sur place. 

Réponse FEDER : 

Les AG ont fixé des objectifs et cibles réalistes en relation avec les objectifs thématiques adoptés et décrites dans le PO. 

Réponse FEAGA, FEADER : 

Pour ce qui concerne le FEADER, une logique d’intervention claire a été établie entre les mesures du Programme de Développement 
rural et les objectifs de UE pour le développement rural. Un cadre de suivi a été établi par l’UE pour mesurer l’exécution et les 
résultats et l’impact du programme. 

Question 2.2.2. 

Réponse FSE : 

Framework 
the 
management  of  ESI 

for 

La sélection  des projets se fait notamment  en fonction  de  leur  capacité d’accueillir des participants répondant  aux spécificités des 

333 

 
 
 
in  order 

to 
Funds 
achieve 
result-
a 
oriented  system  and 
impact of EU projects. 

différents objectifs spécifiques du programme opérationnel.  

Une réunion  de  mise  en place est organisée pour chaque projet lors de laquelle des indicateurs de  performance  et de résultat  sont 
clairement établis ensemble avec le promoteur. Ces indicateurs sont mis à jour au fil du déroulement du projet. 

Les données financières et de suivi sont rassemblées semestriellement au niveau des opérations. Leur réalité et exactitude sont 
vérifiées semestriellement sur base d’un contrôle ex ante à 100% sur pièce et sur place. 

Réponse FEDER : 

Les AGs ne prennent en compte que des projets pouvant générer des résultats, tels que définis par le PO. 

Réponse FEAGA, FEADER : 

Etablissement d’une logique d’intervention claire et directe. En outre, le FEADER est encadré par le système commun de suivi  et 
d’évaluation de la PAC. 

Question 2.2.3. 

Oui. (réponse FSE, FEDER, FEAGA/FEADER) 

Member  State  actions 
to  define  or  improve 
indicators  at 
result 
EU project level. 

Question 2.2.4. 

monitor 

system 
the 

Performance 
measurement 
to 
achievement 
EU 
objectives 
operations 
measure, 
or project level and to 
monitor 
the  output 
and  result  indicators 

at 

Réponse FSE : 

Les  indicateurs  communs  (financiers,  résultats  et  réalisation)  définis  par  la  règlementation  sont  largement  intégrés  dans  les 
différentes étapes des projets, notamment au niveau de la fiche de candidature et au niveau de la collecte semestrielle des données 
financières et de suivi. 

Réponse FEDER : 

Des indicateurs tels que définis par l’UE ont été repris dans le PO, conformément au cadre de performance. 

Réponse FEAGA, FEADER : 

Le FEADER est encadré par le système commun de suivi et d’évaluation de la PAC. 

Réponse  FSE :  Les  données  financières  et  de  suivi  sont  rassemblées  semestriellement  au  niveau  des  opérations.  Leur  réalité  et 
exactitude sont vérifiées semestriellement sur base d’un contrôle ex ante à 100% sur pièce et sur place. A l’issue de ce contrôle est 
tenu un comité de pilotage pour permettre un échange direct entre le porteur de projet et l’Autorité de gestion. 

Réponse FEDER : Des contrôles sur place, analyse des rapports annuels (d’avancement) et réunions de suivi (dans les deux cas) 

Réponse FEAGA, FEADER : 

A la fin de la période de programmation il est prévu de faire une évaluation du rapprochement aux objectifs fixés dans le PDR. 

334 

 
 
EU 

at 
measure, 
operations  or  project 
level. 

Question 3.1.1. 

Oui. (Réponse FSE, FEDER, FEADER/FEAGA) 

or 

a 
Framework 
system  for  the  follow-
up 
ECA's 
of 
recommendations 
addressed  to  Member 
in  Court's 
States 
annual  and 
special 
reports.  Monitoring 
on 
reporting 
and 
achieved 
progress 
to 
towards 
implementation 
of 
Court's 
recommendations 

Réponse FSE : 

Pour le FSE au Luxembourg, un échange étroit avec les représentants de la Commission européenne, notamment lors des réunions 
annuelles, permet de faire le point sur d’éventuelles divergences entre les attentes de la CCE et la mise en place au niveau national. 

Réponse FEDER : 

Les  recommandations  donnent  systématiquement  lieu  à  un  suivi  auprès  du  bénéficiaire  concerné,  et  le  cas  échéant,  un  contrôle 
supplémentaire est étendu à l’ensemble des bénéficiaires potentiellement concernés. D’ailleurs une personne est en charge du  suivi 
de toute remarque de la part de la Commission et/ou de la Cour des comptes européenne. Des agents des différentes AGs se rendent 
régulièrement au groupe de travail « SMWP » du Conseil pour assister à la présentation des rapports spéciaux de la Cour. 

Réponse FEAGA, FEADER : 

Les recommandations de la CDC sont reprises dans un tableau comprenant les plans d’actions relatifs aux différents missions d’audit 
de  la  CDC  et  de  la  CE.  Ce  tableau  sert  de  base  pour  le  suivi.  Il  reprend  les  recommandations  établies  par  la  CDC,  les  actions 
retenues, les gestionnaires en charge ainsi qu’un délai de réalisation des actions retenues. 

335 

 
 
 
 
 
Malta 

Question 1.1.1 

Regional and urban policy, employment social affairs and inclusion 

Main  root  causes 
in  the  major  EU 
areas 
spending 
(common 
agricultural 
policy, 
regional 
and  urban  policy, 
employment, 
social  affairs  and 
inclusion)  for  the 
persisting 
risks 
and errors pointed 
out by the ECA. 

NB: In order to develop the replies, the following non-exhaustive list of examples for 
root causes of legality and regularity errors in EU expenditure may be considered 

Not 
relevant 

Relevant 
in some 
respect 

Relevant 
in most 
respect 

Fully 
relevant 

  number and complexity of rules and gold-plating 

 

incorrect transposition of applicable EU legislation into national laws 

 

failure to observe the legal and procedural requirements stemming from 
EU and national legislation and rules 

  sufficient knowledge in applying procurement rules or State aid rules or 
other  applicable  EU  legislation  and  rules  (including  conditions  and 
eligibility  criteria  for  the  rural  development  measures,  simplified  cost 
options,  reasonableness  of  costs,  result-oriented  agri-environment 
payments) 

  complex eligibility rule 

  weaknesses  in  the  set  of  eligibility  rules  that  may  lead  to  potential  for 

circumventing them 

 

insufficient quality and up-date of the Land Parcel Identification System 
(LPIS) 

  mistakes in the aid applications 

  continued risks of misinterpretation of what is the eligible area for the 

basic payment scheme  

336 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

inefficient sanction mechanism for non-compliance or low sanction rate 
for non-compliance 

  need  of  raising  awareness,  targeted  training,  and,  development  and 
delivery  of  detailed  methodological  support  and  guidance  for  national 
and regional authorities and final beneficiaries 

  need of more or better resources and administrative capacity building 

  need  of  an  improved  quality  of  key  aspects  of  the  supervisory  and 
control  systems  (better  design  and/or  performance  of  administrative 
checks  and  on-the-spot  controls  and/or  increase  of  the  effectiveness  of 
the  work  carried  out  by  management  verifications,  audit  authorities, 
paying agencies and certification bodies) 

  better use of the information necessary to detect and correct available in 
the supporting documents, as well as at the level of the beneficiary or a 
national/regional body 

  sufficiently robust action plans developed to address both the causes of 
errors  and  the  weaknesses  in  the  management  and  control  systems 
and/or deficiencies in the EU spending 

 

insufficient  introduction  of  changes  by  new  legal  and/or  regulatory 
and/or procedural frameworks likely to have a significant impact on the 
causes of errors 

  need  of  more  initiatives  for  ensuring  a  genuine  simplification  for 

beneficiaries and programmes' implementation 

  knowledge and experience sharing, and dissemination of good practices 
improving  widespread 

at  national  and/or  at  EU 

level  on 

337 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
weaknesses/deficiencies/errors 

  expected  results  from  actions  that  will  not  always  be  evident  in  short-

term 

The main lesson is that more simplification will result in less scope for errors. Therefore Malta supports the introduction of simplified 
cost options, but further simplification is necessary. 

Much room was given for simplification measures. Simplified cost options were extended and new simplification mechanisms have been 
introduced, including a new electronic system. 

With  time,  the  officials  concerned  are  improving  due  to  the  gained  experience.  Not  to  mention  the  training  that  the  officials  are 
undertaking both at home and abroad. The ‘checklists’ used during audits have been refined to cover all aspects and changes that took 
place. In the meantime the new electronic system (2014-2020) will further help to reduce errors. 

338 

Question 1.1.2. 

lessons 
Main 
while 
learned 
addressing 
the 
risks  and  errors 
for 
EU 
the 
spending. 

Question 1.1.3. 

practices 
Good 
and  examples  of 
success  stories  in 
the 
of 
areas 
compliance  with 
EU  and  national 
eligibility 
rules, 
compliance  with 
EU  and  national 
public 
procurement 
legislation, 
and 
compliance  with 
State aid rules. 

Question 1.2.1. 

Further  measures 
to 
the 
enhance 
effectiveness of the 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Introduction  of  ‘risk  registers’  Focus  on  where  there  is  greater  scope  for  fraud.  Public  procurement  law  was  amended  so  that  the 
flexibility of the Directives be used. 

A register of risks was created where this will help authorities to identify in advance risks relating to expenditure of reimbursement.  The 
electronic system will also help to reduce these risks, 

checks  carried  out 
declaring 
before 
certifying 
or 
expenditure  to  the 
Commission. 

Question 1.2.2. 

Further  measures 
the 
to 
enhance 
of 
effectiveness 
actions 
to  detect 
and  correct  errors 
concerning 
expenditure, which 
previously 
was 
or 
declared 
certified 
the 
to 
Commission. 

Question 1.3.1. 

Risk  analysis  and 
estimated  level  of 
error  in  the  major 
EU spending areas 
(common 
agricultural 
policy, 
regional 
and  urban  policy, 
employment, 
social  affairs  and 
inclusion). 

Question 1.3.2. 

Yes. 

Relationship 
between  the  basis 

When payments are made ‘upfront’ there is a greater scope for errors. Anyone who commits irregularities (and fraud) finds it  easy to 
carry them out when the payment is not changed 

339 

 
 
 
 
for  payment  and 
levels  of  error  in 
the  major  EU 
spending 
areas 
(common 
agricultural 
regional 
policy, 
and  urban  policy, 
employment, 
social  affairs  and 
inclusion). 

Question 2.1.1. 

Links  between  EU 
the 
in 
priorities 
context 
the 
of 
Europe 2020 
strategy,  including 
Horizon 2020,  and 
national priorities. 

Question 2.1.2. 

to 
synergies 

Measures 
pursue 
and 
complementarities 
ESI 
between 
Funds 
and 
national 
programmes . 

Question 2.2.1. 

Performance 
measurement 
system  to  link  EU 

Their relationship is fully evident in the Partnership Agreement that Malta submitted in 2014. It seems clear that, although  the various 
funds are separate, they complement each other and address the areas of the Strategy 2020. 

During  Programming,  coordination  between  the  European  Structural  and  Investment  Funds  and  the  National  Programmes  was  made 
through the 'Inter-Ministerial Committee for Programming for the Period 2014-2020.' Driven by the Office of the Permanent Secretary 
within the Ministry of European Affairs and the Implementation of the Electoral Manifesto, the said committee had representatives from 
all  the  Ministries  who  are  all  linked  with  the  European  Funds.  This  Committee  was  aided  by  a  number  of  sectoral  subcommittees, 
focusing on key strategic themes. During the implementation the Inter-Ministerial Committee is there for the coordination between all 
Funds. There is also works between managing authorities within the same Ministry. 

In  Malta,  indicators  of  results  and  effects,  under  each ‘Priority  Axes’  —  where  possible  —  are  chosen  or  are  comparable  to  those  of 
regional  indicators  collected,  accepted  and  diffused  by  Eurostat.  It  is  also  worth  mentioning  the  electronic  system  to  collect  data  on 
related indicators in each programme, training to the Selection Committee from ECA representatives and analysis of the course of the 
Partnership Agreement 

340 

 
 
 
 
or 
to  EU 

measures, 
operations 
projects 
priorities/Europe 
2020 
and targets. 

objectives 

The  selection  criteria  of  projects  approved  by  the  Monitoring  Committee  include  criteria  on  the  basis  of  the  quality  of  the  project 
proposal and the potential to achieve the results expected as included in the Operational Programmes. 

Question 2.2.2. 

Framework for the 
of 
management 
ESI 
in 
Funds 
order  to  achieve  a 
result-oriented 
system  and  impact 
of EU projects. 

Question 2.2.3. 

Yes. 

The targets set are the underlying results indicators related to the operational programme. 

Performance measurement will be established through ‘performance audits’ also known as ‘value for money audits’ focusing on result 
and effect indicators and the achievement of the objectives. 

State 
Member 
actions  to  define 
or  improve  result 
indicators  at  EU 
project level. 

Question 2.2.4. 

Performance 
measurement 
system  to  monitor 
the 
achievement 
objectives  at  EU 
measure, 
operations 
or 
project  level  and 
the 
to  monitor 
output  and  result 
indicators  at  EU 

341 

 
 
 
 
measure, 
operations 
project level. 

or 

Question 3.1.1. 

Yes. 

Having regard to the annual reports of the ECA, any reference to a particular subject is to be sent to the department or entity concerned 
to address the issue. 

As regards special reports of the ECA, it  is for each  department/entity to be on the alert to  take the necessary actions if the report in 
question falls within its responsibilities. 

The  Financial  Control  Unit  makes  a  summary  of  the  issues  included  in  reports  and  disseminates  them  to  the  Management  Authority. 
Continuous training by the ECA is also relevant, and it is also worth mentioning the one about performance auditing. 

for 

Framework  or  a 
system 
the 
follow-up of ECA's 
recommendations 
to 
addressed 
Member  States  in 
annual 
Court's 
and 
special 
reports. 
and 
Monitoring 
reporting 
on 
progress  achieved 
to 
towards 
implementation  of 
Court's 
recommendations 

342 

 
 
 
 
 
Netherlands 

Question 1.1.1 

Main  root  causes 
in  the  major  EU 
areas 
spending 
(common 
agricultural 
policy, 
regional 
and  urban  policy, 
employment, 
social  affairs  and 
inclusion)  for  the 
persisting 
risks 
and errors pointed 
out by the ECA. 

NB: In order to develop the replies, the following non-exhaustive list of examples for 
root causes of legality and regularity errors in EU expenditure may be considered 

Not 
relevant 

Relevant 
in some 
respect 

Relevant 
in most 
respect 

Fully 
relevant 

  number and complexity of rules and gold-plating 

 

incorrect transposition of applicable EU legislation into national laws 

 

failure to observe the legal and procedural requirements stemming from 
EU and national legislation and rules 

  sufficient knowledge in applying procurement rules or State aid rules or 
other  applicable  EU  legislation  and  rules  (including  conditions  and 
eligibility  criteria  for  the  rural  development  measures,  simplified  cost 
options,  reasonableness  of  costs,  result-oriented  agri-environment 
payments) 

  complex eligibility rule 

  weaknesses  in  the  set  of  eligibility  rules  that  may  lead  to  potential  for 

circumventing them 

 

insufficient quality and up-date of the Land Parcel Identification System 
(LPIS) 

  mistakes in the aid applications 

  continued risks of misinterpretation of what is the eligible area for the 

basic payment scheme  

 

inefficient sanction mechanism for non-compliance or low sanction rate 

343 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
for non-compliance 

  need  of  raising  awareness,  targeted  training,  and,  development  and 
delivery  of  detailed  methodological  support  and  guidance  for  national 
and regional authorities and final beneficiaries 

  need of more or better resources and administrative capacity building 

  need  of  an  improved  quality  of  key  aspects  of  the  supervisory  and 
control  systems  (better  design  and/or  performance  of  administrative 
checks  and  on-the-spot  controls  and/or  increase  of  the  effectiveness  of 
the  work  carried  out  by  management  verifications,  audit  authorities, 
paying agencies and certification bodies) 

  better use of the information necessary to detect and correct available in 
the supporting documents, as well as at the level of the beneficiary or a 
national/regional body 

  sufficiently robust action plans developed to address both the causes of 
errors  and  the  weaknesses  in  the  management  and  control  systems 
and/or deficiencies in the EU spending 

 

insufficient  introduction  of  changes  by  new  legal  and/or  regulatory 
and/or procedural frameworks likely to have a significant impact on the 
causes of errors 

  need  of  more  initiatives  for  ensuring  a  genuine  simplification  for 

beneficiaries and programmes' implementation 

  knowledge and experience sharing, and dissemination of good practices 
improving  widespread 

level  on 

at  national  and/or  at  EU 
weaknesses/deficiencies/errors 

  expected  results  from  actions  that  will  not  always  be  evident  in  short-

term 

In the 2007-2013 programming period the eligible cost categories for EFRD projects were specified in the EFRD Regulation, Objective 

344 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
2 for the 2007-2013 programming period. That article distinguishes ten different cost categories. In practice it proved difficult to classify 
costs under the correct category. When specifying eligible cost categories for the 2014-2020 programming period careful thought was 
given to how to define eligible cost categories that were clearly distinguishable and it was decided to significantly reduce the number of 
categories. This seems to have solved the problem of categorising costs. 

The interpretation of EU legislation is unclear for EFRD projects. 

We cannot single out any main causes for ERDF projects. 

Reply on ESF: The European eligibility rules are complicated and extensive (numerous regulations, implementing rules and guidelines). 
The focus is also entirely on lawfulness. Simplified cost options could perhaps be a way of placing more emphasis on efficiency and 
effectiveness. For its ESF programme for 2014-2020 the Netherlands is trying to use the scope for SCO which the regulations allow in 
this area. 

Reply  on  EAFRD:  the  main  lessons  learned  are:  (1)  establish  an  audit  trail  for  administrative  controls  and  (2)  adjust  and  improve 
controls  on  public  procurement.  The  latter  point  is  linked  to  the  guidelines  for  deductions  in  the  case  of  public  contracts  incorrectly 
awarded  and  with  regard  to  the  system  for  evaluating  whether  costs  are  reasonable.  The  Netherlands  has  had  few  problems  with 
compliance with State aid rules.  

Reply  on  ESF:  For  the  ESF  the  Netherlands  tries  to  make  as  much  use  as  possible  of  the  simplified  cost  options  provided  by  the 
European regulations. A positive example is the simplified cost option provided in Article 14(2) of the ESF Regulation (Regulation (EU) 
No 1304/2013): a fixed percentage of direct staff costs may be used to cover the remaining eligible costs of a particular operation.  

Reply  on  EAFRD:  An  example  of  good  practice  is  the  introduction  of  the  collective  system  for  agri-environment-climate  measures 
which allows groups of farmers jointly to apply for a subsidy. The new system was introduced in close consultation with DG AGRI. We 
make a careful analysis of where the problems arise in implementation (and sometimes policy), at a general level, and look for workable 
solutions with the Commission. The collective approach is a good example of this, as is the practice of conducting a repeat control on 
public procurement and, in the light of this, amending the checklist and the approach to determining whether costs are reasonable. The 
Dutch  authorities  intend  to  contact  DG  AGRI  informally  at  an  early  stage  to  check  whether  there  is  room  for  improvement  in  the 
approach they are adopting. 

Question 1.1.2. 

lessons 
Main 
while 
learned 
addressing 
the 
risks  and  errors 
EU 
the 
for 
spending. 

Question 1.1.3. 

Good 
practices 
and  examples  of 
success  stories  in 
the 
of 
areas 
compliance  with 
EU  and  national 
eligibility 
rules, 
compliance  with 
EU  and  national 
public 
procurement 
legislation, 
and 
compliance  with 
State aid rules. 

Question 1.2.1. 

Reply on ESF: For the 2014-2020 programming period the Netherlands has placed the emphasis on preventing errors by beneficiaries by 

345 

 
 
 
 
informing beneficiaries right at the start of the programming period about administrative requirements and methods. The beneficiary is 
also visited regularly during the project implementation phase to prevent the declaration of inelegible costs. It should be noted that the 
Netherlands' error percentage in respect of the ESF in the 2007-2013 programming period has been below 2%. 

Reply  on  EAFRD:  These  can  be  found,  for  example,  in  the  Action  Plan  on  cutting  the  error  rate  in  implementing  the  EAFRD  in  the 
Netherlands. In addition to the measures mentioned there (e.g. better checklists and more automated assessment), other steps are being 
taken, for example introducing improvements in quality controls. 

Reply  for  ESF:  The  Netherlands  has  a  strong  management  and  control  system,  which  is  coordinated  with  the  Certifying  and  Audit 
Authority.  This  is  reflected  in  the  error  rate.  Where  errors  are  nevertheless  detected  in  the  second  line,  an  analysis  is  carried  out  to 
determine the cause.  

Reply for EAFRD: The compliance role within the paying organisation has been strengthened, for example, and there is more proactive 
monitoring and follow-up of audit findings. 

Reply for ESF: An analysis of the cause of errors is always carried out and results in changes to the Managing Authority's management 
and control system.  

We would refer the Commission in general to the Netherlands' follow-up to audit findings and the action plans it has drawn up which list 
the efforts being made to reduce the margin of error. 

Further  measures 
to 
the 
enhance 
effectiveness of the 
checks  carried  out 
declaring 
before 
or 
certifying 
expenditure  to  the 
Commission. 

Question 1.2.2. 

Further  measures 
the 
to 
enhance 
of 
effectiveness 
to  detect 
actions 
and  correct  errors 
concerning 
expenditure, which 
previously 
was 
or 
declared 
certified 
the 
to 
Commission. 

Question 1.3.1. 

Risk  analysis  and 
estimated  level  of 
error  in  the  major 
EU spending areas 
(common 
agricultural 
policy, 
regional 
and  urban  policy, 
employment, 
social  affairs  and 
inclusion). 

346 

 
 
 
 
Question 1.3.2. 

Yes. 

Relationship 
between  the  basis 
for  payment  and 
levels  of  error  in 
the  major  EU 
spending 
areas 
(common 
agricultural 
regional 
policy, 
and  urban  policy, 
employment, 
social  affairs  and 
inclusion). 

Question 2.1.1. 

Links  between  EU 
the 
in 
priorities 
context 
the 
of 
Europe 2020 
strategy,  including 
Horizon 2020,  and 
national priorities. 

Question 2.1.2. 

to 
synergies 

Measures 
pursue 
and 
complementarities 
ESI 
between 
Funds 
and 
national 
programmes . 

On the one hand, the Court of Auditors states that ‘entitlement based’ or flat-rate subsidies are less susceptible to errors than subsidies 
based on reimbursing costs actually incurred. This is because such schemes are less complex. On the other hand, we do not think that all 
policy objectives can be achieved with subsidies based on reimbursing actual costs, even though they reduce the chance of errors.  

The use of simplified cost options reduces the complexity of implementation and hence also the risk of error. Applying simplified cost 
options generally reduces the amount of work involved in assessing whether costs are reasonable. This then reduces the likelihood of 
errors or expenditure with inadequate justification. However, using simplified cost options requires an effort on the part of the managing 
authority. 

We think that applying a more results-oriented reimbursement system calls for a more differentiated approach, i.e. by fund. A policy-
based risk analysis or analysis of the pros and cons of result-based budgeting (performance budgeting) needs to be carried out first, for 
each type of fund or activity. This analysis will probably produce different results for public financing of infrastructure projects than for 
employment projects. 

Reply  for  ESF:  The  Netherlands'  main  Europe  2020  objectives  are:  to  achieve  a  labour  force  participation  rate  of  80%  and  cut  the 
number  of  people  living  in  households  with  low  work  intensity  by  100  000.  Both  objectives  focus  on  work.  The  ESF  OP  also 
concentrates on work, and the most important performance indicators focus on the numbers moving into work. This is entirely in line 
with the Europe 2020 strategy. The Netherlands spends over 70% of its ESF resources on active inclusion (targeting people who are far 
removed from the labour market). The remaining resources are used to ensure that people remain employable in the longer term, in the 
light of the ageing of the population and a rising pension age (main objective relating to increasing labour market participation; 20%) 
and sector-specific projects to increase employment (Integrated Territorial Investments (ITI), in conjunction with ERDF; 5%).  

Reply for ESF: Within the ESF, every effort is made to find synergies with other funds and national programmes. In the case of social 
inclusion (70% of the ESF budget) efforts are made to coordinate this with implementation of the Dutch 'Participation Act', which gives 
municipal authorities responsibility for helping individuals and vulnerable groups into the labour market.  

Within the ESF, municipal authorities are encouraged to develop more activities for this particularly vulnerable target group. Similarly, 
in the case of longer-term employability (20% of the budget), ESF measures are coordinated with national policy. Within the ESI funds 
efforts are made to find synergies with the ERDF.  

Reply  for  ERDF:  at  EU  level  emphasis  is  now  placed  not  only  on  stimulating  research  but  also,  increasingly,  on  innovation,  with  or 
without smart specialisation strategies. As a result, the programmes in the Netherlands are more firmly embedded in national policy, for 

347 

 
 
 
Question 2.2.1. 

Performance 
measurement 
system  to  link  EU 
measures, 
operations 
projects 
priorities/Europe 
2020 
and targets. 

or 
to  EU 

objectives 

example because they tie in with the ‘top sector policy’ and the ‘smart industry agenda’.  

Reply  for  ESF:  Performance  is  measured  using  ‘common  indicators’  and  programme-specific  indicators  that  are  consistent  with  the 
Europe  2020  objectives  and  are  measured  and  reported  to  the  European  Commission  annually.  For  the  ESF  there  is  continuous 
evaluation/analysis  over  and  above  the  requirements  of  EU  legislation.  For  example,  we  measure  the  programme's  contribution  to 
horizontal  objectives  such  as  equal  opportunities  and  non-discrimination.  In  addition,  other  indicators  outside  the  regular  system  are 
assessed for ESF projects, such as measuring sub-target groups (specifically vulnerable groups such as refugees or the disabled) and how 
quickly they find a job after participating in an ESF project. 

An evaluation of the programming for 2014-2020 recently carried out on the initiative of the European Commission concluded that the 
Dutch  ESF  programme  2014-2020  tied  in  well  with the  Europe  2020 objectives  and  the  country-specific  recommendations  which  the 
Netherlands has received in recent years as regards the labour market participation of vulnerable groups.  

Reply for ERDF: For each Operational Programme there are two types of indicator: output and result indicators. There is a list of output 
indicators for each Operational Programme. Some of the indicators on this list come from a standard list from the European Commission 
and apply to several Operational Programmes. In addition to these common indicators, each Programme has its own specific indicators. 
For  each  output  indicator  selected,  the  beneficiary  sets  a  target  value  in  advance.  This  is  the  score  that  is  attained  at  the  end  of  the 
project.  The  managing  authority  evaluates  the  output  indicators  selected  by  the  beneficiary  and  the  level  of  the  target  values.  Result 
indicators  are  directly  linked  to  a  specific  objective  in  the  Operational  Programme.  In  effect,  result  indicators  provide  a  standardised 
picture of the objective the managing authority wishes to achieve with the Programme, or a specific part of it.  

Question 2.2.2. 

Framework for the 
of 
management 
ESI 
in 
Funds 
order  to  achieve  a 
result-oriented 
system  and  impact 
of EU projects. 

Reply for ESF: Each year the results of the ESF OP are measured in terms of  the number of people who find a job directly after their 
participation ends and six months after the end of their participation. In addition, we specifically measure whether participants drop out 
in  the  course  of  the  project  or  find  a  job  before  the  end  of  the  project  or  12  months  after  it  ends.  These  results  are  reported  to  the 
European Commission in the Annual Implementation Report. In addition measures needed to improve the implementation of the ESF are 
introduced in response to regular evaluations.  

We would like to add that by applying simplified cost options the focus within the Dutch ESF OP can shift more towards performance 
oriented  monitoring.  We  are  currently  working  hard  to  develop  as  many  of  these  simplified  cost  options  as  possible  for  the 
implementation of the ESF. We are therefore very interested to see what further forms of simplification the European Commission is 
working on. 

Reply for ERDF: The managing authority and committee of experts look for projects that contribute to the objective and result indicator.  

Question 2.2.3. 

Yes and No. 

Explanation: For the ERDF the result indicators provide a standardised picture of the objective the managing authority wishes to achieve 

348 

 
 
 
 
with the Programme, or a specific part of it. This is a picture at a higher level of abstraction than project level.  

Various result indicators have been established for ESF projects in order to measure success in finding a job at EU project level, in line 
with  EU  regulations.  In  addition,  we  also  evaluate  and  measure  the  results  for  the  ESF  at  the  level  of  labour  market  regions  (unit  of 
measurement). The results are collated at aggregate level for reporting to the Commission.  

Reply  for  ESF:  All  projects  supply  the  participants'  social  security  numbers  (‘BSN-nummers’).  These  are  forwarded  to  Statistics 
Netherlands  (CBS)  which  checks  in  the  existing  registers  whether  the  person  concerned  has  a  job  six  months  later.  The  European 
Commission has cited the way the Netherlands uses national statistical records to collect information about the outcomes for participants 
(effectiveness of the OP) as an example of good practice. 

Reply for the ERDF: We comply with EU regulations. At the end of a project the beneficiary determines the definitive scores for the 
output indicators on the basis of the evidence collected over the course of the project. The beneficiary is in principle required to attain 
the  scores  for  the  output  indicators  specified  in  the  award  decision  and  must  be  able  to  provide  supporting  evidence  for  the  scores 
attained. If the end result falls short of the target, the beneficiary will be asked for an explanation and justification, which will then be 
used to consider, in each case, what consequences this will have for determining the final subsidy. 

Member 
State 
actions  to  define 
or  improve  result 
indicators  at  EU 
project level. 

Question 2.2.4. 

Performance 
measurement 
system  to  monitor 
the 
achievement 
objectives  at  EU 
measure, 
or 
operations 
project  level  and 
to  monitor 
the 
output  and  result 
indicators  at  EU 
measure, 
operations 
project level. 

or 

Question 3.1.1. 

Yes. 

The Netherlands' management and control system is designed to ensure that recommendations are followed up. Each department which 
is responsible for a fund follows a normal cycle, which is embedded in regular processes. The Court of Auditors' recommendations to the 
Netherlands  are  in  principle  always  followed.  Problem  owners  are  identified  and  progress  in  implementing  the  recommendation  is 
always monitored periodically. 

for 

Framework  or  a 
the 
system 
follow-up of ECA's 
recommendations 
addressed 
to 
Member  States  in 
annual 
Court's 
and 
special 
reports. 
and 
Monitoring 
reporting 
on 
progress  achieved 
to 
towards 

349 

 
 
 
 
implementation  of 
Court's 
recommendations 

350 

 
 
 
 
 
Poland 

Question 1.1.1 

Main  root  causes 
in  the  major  EU 
areas 
spending 
(common 
agricultural 
policy, 
regional 
and  urban  policy, 
employment, 
social  affairs  and 
inclusion)  for  the 
persisting 
risks 
and errors pointed 
out by the ECA. 

NB: In order to develop the replies, the following non-exhaustive list of examples for 
root causes of legality and regularity errors in EU expenditure may be considered 

Not 
relevant 

Relevant 
in some 
respect 

Relevant 
in most 
respect 

Fully 
relevant 

  number and complexity of rules and gold-plating 

 

incorrect transposition of applicable EU legislation into national laws 

 

failure to observe the legal and procedural requirements stemming from 
EU and national legislation and rules 

  sufficient knowledge in applying procurement rules or State aid rules or 
other  applicable  EU  legislation  and  rules  (including  conditions  and 
eligibility  criteria  for  the  rural  development  measures,  simplified  cost 
options,  reasonableness  of  costs,  result-oriented  agri-environment 
payments) 

  complex eligibility rule 

  weaknesses  in  the  set  of  eligibility  rules  that  may  lead  to  potential  for 

circumventing them 

 

insufficient quality and up-date of the Land Parcel Identification System 
(LPIS) 

  mistakes in the aid applications 

  continued risks of misinterpretation of what is the eligible area for the 

basic payment scheme  

351 

 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

inefficient sanction mechanism for non-compliance or low sanction rate 
for non-compliance 

  need  of  raising  awareness,  targeted  training,  and,  development  and 
delivery  of  detailed  methodological  support  and  guidance  for  national 
and regional authorities and final beneficiaries 

  need of more or better resources and administrative capacity building 

  need  of  an  improved  quality  of  key  aspects  of  the  supervisory  and 
control  systems  (better  design  and/or  performance  of  administrative 
checks  and  on-the-spot  controls  and/or  increase  of  the  effectiveness  of 
the  work  carried  out  by  management  verifications,  audit  authorities, 
paying agencies and certification bodies) 

  better use of the information necessary to detect and correct available in 
the supporting documents, as well as at the level of the beneficiary or a 
national/regional body 

  sufficiently robust action plans developed to address both the causes of 
errors  and  the  weaknesses  in  the  management  and  control  systems 
and/or deficiencies in the EU spending 

 

insufficient  introduction  of  changes  by  new  legal  and/or  regulatory 
and/or procedural frameworks likely to have a significant impact on the 
causes of errors 

  need  of  more  initiatives  for  ensuring  a  genuine  simplification  for 

beneficiaries and programmes' implementation 

  knowledge and experience sharing, and dissemination of good practices 
improving  widespread 

at  national  and/or  at  EU 

level  on 

352 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
weaknesses/deficiencies/errors 

  expected  results  from  actions  that  will  not  always  be  evident  in  short-

term 

The  root  cause  of  errors  in  the  area  of  eligibility  and  granting  State  aid,  notwithstanding  best  efforts,  knowledge  and  experience  of 
beneficiaries, lies in regulations and principles that change frequently in these areas.  

The root cause of errors made in the area of public procurement may be new EU directives related to public procurement, i.e. Directive 
2014/24/EU  of  26  February  2014  on  public  procurement  repealing  Directive  2004/18/EC  (OJ  L 94  of  28  March  2014,  p. 65)  – 
hereinafter: the classic directive, Directive 2014/25/EU of 26 February 2014 on procurement by entities operating in the water, energy, 
transport  and  postal  services  sectors  and  repealing  Directive  2004/17/EC  (OJ  L 94  of  28  March  2014,  p. 243)  –  hereinafter:  sectoral 
directive, and Directive 2014/23/EU of the European Parliament  and of the  Council of 26 February 2014 on the award of concession 
contracts (OJ L 94 of 28 March 2014, p. 1), adopted in February 2014. Member States were required to transpose them into their national 
legislations,  as  a  rule,  by  18  April  2016.  Entities  obliged  to  apply  national  regulations  on  public  procurement  will  be  required  in  the 
nearest future, i.e. after the Amendments to the Act enter into force, to conduct procedures following new regulations. 

Question 1.1.2. 

In the area of compliance with EU and national eligibility rules 

Main 
lessons 
learned 
while 
the 
addressing 
risks  and  errors 
for 
EU 
the 
spending. 

Dissemination  of  knowledge  in  this  regard,  for  instance,  within  a  working  group  forum  gathering  representatives  of  managing 
authorities. Planned intensification  of auditing  and verification  activities at the stage before certifying expenditure to  the Commission 
due to the implementation of the annual accounts mechanism. 

Given  the  issues  related  to  beneficiary  eligibility  assessment  in  terms  of  the  standard  set  out  in  Article  60  of  Regulation  (EU) 
No 1306/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council, i.e. creating artificial conditions, it seems reasonable to facilitate sharing 
experience in this regard among Member States. 

Verification of double financing from other EU or national programmes in the 2014–2020 programming period is an obligatory element 
of administrative control at the stage of granting aid or the stage of  payment  application. During  a cross-check,  it is verified whether 
there  is  no  risk  of  unauthorised  double  financing.  If  eligible  costs  of  an  operation  are  found  to  have  been  financed  by  means  of  a 
contribution  from  structural  funds,  the  Cohesion  Fund  or  any  other  EU  financial  instrument,  the  amount  of  eligible  costs  of  the 
operation,  being  the  basis  for  calculating  the  amount  of  support  to  be  paid,  is  decreased  by  the  costs  that  were  financed  with  such 
contribution. 

In the area of compliance with EU and national public procurement legislation 

353 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
It  is  necessary  to  ensure  timely  transposition  of  EU  regulations  into  the  national  legal  system  and  to  develop  the  rules  of  incurring 
expenditure to which the public procurement legislation does not apply. 

In the area of State aid 

To ensure a correct system for granting State aid, it is necessary, first and foremost, to carry out a comprehensive analysis of available 
(based on EU law) and acceptable legal grounds for granting such aid and to juxtapose the results of the analysis with needs identified in 
this area among entities that provide such aid and potential beneficiaries. Additionally, a continuous and ongoing transfer of knowledge 
is essential to eliminate erroneous interpretation and incorrect application of State aid legislation. Specific activities may include: 

 
taking, already at an early stage, legislative activities connected with developing a legal system for granting State aid followed 
by preparing, adopting and publishing normative acts constituting aid programmes, on the basis of which State aid and  de minimis aid 
are granted as part of spending funds from specific operational programmes; 

explaining  on  an  ongoing  basis  any  interpretation  doubts  regarding  both  EU  and  national  State  aid  legislation,  including  in 

 
particular by: 

o  organising working groups with managing authorities for operational programmes; 

o  issuing individual interpretations in the area of State aid rules in response to questions asked by entities that provide aid and potential 

beneficiaries; 

o  providing managing authorities with lists of questions asked and answers given; 

staying in contact with the European Commission and national bodies responsible, in a horizontal manner, for matters related to 

 
granting State aid (President of the Office of Competition and Consumer Protection), in particular by: 

o  ongoing contact to explain any arising doubts regarding the correct interpretation of laws, among others through the use of the e-State 

Aid Wiki platform designed for this purpose; 

o  submitting questions in writing in the case of key issues; 

 

ongoing training of institutional employees to enhance and update their knowledge of EU and national State aid legislation. 

354 

 
 
 
Question 1.1.3. 

In the area of compliance with EU and national eligibility rules 

practices 
Good 
and  examples  of 
success  stories  in 
the 
of 
areas 
compliance  with 
EU  and  national 
eligibility 
rules, 
compliance  with 
EU  and  national 
public 
procurement 
legislation, 
and 
compliance  with 
State aid rules. 

Sharing  experience  within  an  eligibility  group  forum  and  applying  simplified  methods  of  settling  expenditure  with  a  flat  rate,  and  in 
particular applying a flat rate to indirect costs as well as using a lump sum to settle costs. 

Introducing to national legislation dedicated to measure 9 ‘Creation of manufacturers’ groups and organizations’ of the RDP 2014–2020 
provisions limiting the risk of creating artificial conditions by allowing groups of agricultural manufacturers comprised exclusively of 
natural persons to apply for support. 

As regards checking whether there is no risk of unauthorised double financing, administrative control covers 100 % of aid applications 
and payment applications submitted. Additionally, Applicants/Beneficiaries file a declaration to the effect that eligible costs of a given 
operation  are  not  financed  by  means  of  a  contribution  obtained  from  structural  funds,  the  Cohesion  Fund  or  any  other  EU  financial 
instrument. 

In the area of compliance with EU and national public procurement legislation 

A competitiveness database was implemented, which is an IT system used for the purpose of executing the competitiveness principle as 
described  in  the  Guidelines  of  the  Minister  of  Development  regarding  expenditure  eligibility  within  European  Regional  Development 
Fund, European Social Fund and Cohesion Fund for 2014–2020, thus increasing transparency of contracts with an overall value below 
the statutory threshold. 

In the area of State aid 

Possibly fast and comprehensive development of a legal system for granting State aid within regional operational programmes for 2014–
2020.  After  the  European  Commission  adopted  the  Commission  Regulation  (EU)  No  651/2014  of  17  June  2014  declaring  certain 
categories of aid compatible with the internal market in application of Articles 107 and 108 of the Treaty, its wording was immediately 
analysed,  and  the  areas  for  which  aid  programmes  were  to  be  developed  were  defined  in  cooperation  with  managing  authorities  for 
regional  operational  programmes.  After  the  analysis  was  conducted  in  2015,  legislative  work  was  initiated,  as  a  result  of  which  15 
programmes were adopted to form legal grounds for granting aid in the area of, among others, supporting SMEs, R&D infrastructure, 
sports infrastructure, local infrastructure, culture and maintenance of cultural heritage, environmental protection and the energy sector. 
The work in this scope has been generally completed (in respect of adopting three aid programmes such work is still pending), while 
entities that provide aid and potential beneficiaries are aware of the conditions of granting State aid and de minimis aid as well as of the 
criteria that must be satisfied in such case. 

Additionally,  knowledge  is  shared  on  an  ongoing  basis  among  individual  institutions  involved  in  the  process  of  granting  State  aid. 
Contacts are established both in an official and working form. In the case of issues of vital horizontal importance, interpretations related 
thereto (or resolutions provided by European Commission / President of the Office of Competition and Consumer Protection) are made 

355 

 
 
 
 
available to all managing authorities for regional operational programmes. 

Question 1.2.1. 

Further  measures 
the 
enhance 
to 
effectiveness of the 
checks  carried  out 
before 
declaring 
certifying 
or 
expenditure  to  the 
Commission. 

To  improve  the  effectiveness  of  expenditure  controls  performed  prior  to  reporting  them  to  the  European  Commission,  the 
competitiveness database was implemented, which is an IT system used for the purpose of executing the competitiveness principle as 
described  in  the  Guidelines  of  the  Minister  of  Development  on  expenditure  eligibility  within  European  Regional  Development  Fund, 
European Social Fund and Cohesion Fund for 2014–2020.  

The database is a website dedicated to posting requests for proposal (https://bazakonkurencyjnosci.funduszeeuropejskie.gov.pl/).  

The database consists of five parts: notice information, description of the subject of the contract, tender assessment, contracting authority 
(beneficiary),  information  on  the  selected  economic  operator.  Publishing  the  scope  of  information  increased  social  control  over  the 
process of awarding contracts below the statutory threshold, and therefore, it increased institutional supervision over its proper conduct.  

Additionally, in 2015 Working Group on Fighting Against Financial Fraud in Cohesion Policy Funds began to operate. The Group takes 
actions aimed at combating financial fraud by, among others: 

 

sharing  knowledge  and  experience  in  the  area  of  detecting  and  combating  financial  fraud  at  conferences,  seminars  and  training 
sessions organised for target groups defined by persons involved in the work of the group; 

  developing  conditions  for  sharing  data  on  EU  funds  beneficiaries  between  respective  managing  authorities  and  other  institutions 

holding control and investigation powers; 

  developing rules of cooperation between EU funds implementation system institutions and law enforcement agencies if they become 

aware that fraud may have occurred. 

Additionally,  the  European  Commission  implemented  a  mechanism  of  presenting  annual  expenditure  statements  accompanied  by  a 
management declaration and an annual summary of final reports from audits and inspections, which contributed to the intensification of 
control activities prior to disclosing expenditure in annual statements. 

Moreover, to ensure effective fight against fraud and conflict of interest, managing authorities were obliged to draft documents on fraud 
prevention  mechanisms  used  in  their  programmes.  The  basic  scope  of  documents  was  specified  in  the  guidelines  of  the  Minister  of 

356 

 
 
 
Infrastructure and Development on controlling the execution of operational programmes for 2014–2020. 

At the request of the European Commission, Poland is obliged to update the plan of corrective actions taken by the ARiMR in respect of 
follow-up  activities  related  to  national  action  plans  on  an  error  rate.  The  national  action  plan  includes  information  on  preventive  and 
corrective actions related to errors made and error rates which serve to monitor the effects of preventive and corrective actions taken. 
The plan is to minimise the occurrence of errors identified during an audit performed by, among others, the European Commission or the 
European Court of Auditors by introducing appropriate preventive and corrective actions as well as monitoring the effectiveness of the 
actions/solutions adopted. 

The  last  national  corrective  action  plan  for  Poland  (5th  update  of  the  action  plan)  was  drafted  and  submitted  to  the  European 
Commission in February 2016. 

Additionally, a corrective action plan was implemented within the mechanism of providing financial assistance to initially recognised 
groups of fruit and vegetables manufacturers. The last update was made on 4 October 2016. 

Moreover, a policy of fighting against fraud in the ARiMR was introduced, and it is regulated by Decision No 59/2014 of the ARiMR 
President amended by Decision No 60/2015 of the ARiMR President. 

As a rule, expenditure, prior to being certified to the EC, undergo a verification process, so they should contain no errors. However, to 
ensure even higher effectiveness of actions aimed at detecting and correcting irregularities related to the expenditure already notified to 
the  EC,  information  desks  were  established  in  Managing  Authorities,  the  police  and  the  prosecutor’s  offices,  namely  liaison  officers 
were appointed to facilitate and exchange information between the Managing Authorities and law enforcement agencies. 

As  far  as  other  instruments  are  concerned,  for  instance,  in  the  POIG  programme  (and  in  the  POIR  programme),  suspending  further 
payments within a given project is applied if there is a suspicion of any irregularities, in particular those that may be classified as fraud 
(e.g. fraud, corruption, subsidy swindling). 

Additionally, a corrective action plan was implemented within the mechanism of providing financial assistance to initially recognised 
groups of fruit and vegetables manufacturers. The last update was made on 4 October 2016. 

Carrying out an analysis of opportunities for the possibly widest application of simplified costs is being considered as the  ECA noted 
that in the expenditure based on the reimbursement of costs, a significantly higher level of errors was observed than in  the expenditure 
based on the right to payments.  

Moreover,  in  accordance  with  Article  62  of  Regulation  (EU)  No  1305/2013  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  17 
December 2013 on support for rural development by the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD), Member States 
ensure a possibility of verifying and controlling all rural development measures that they intend to implement. An  ex ante assessment 
and an assessment during the implementation period take into account the results of controls in the previous and current programming 

357 

Question 1.2.2. 

Further  measures 
the 
to 
enhance 
of 
effectiveness 
actions 
to  detect 
and  correct  errors 
concerning 
expenditure, which 
previously 
was 
or 
declared 
certified 
the 
to 
Commission. 

Question 1.3.1. 

Risk  analysis  and 
estimated  level  of 
error  in  the  major 
EU spending areas 
(common 
agricultural 

 
 
policy, 
regional 
and  urban  policy, 
employment, 
social  affairs  and 
inclusion). 

period. When the assessment indicates that the verifiability and controllability requirements are not satisfied, appropriate  measures are 
corrected accordingly. 

Additionally, the European Commission issued guidelines entitled ‘Verifiability and controllability of measures: Assessment of risks of 
errors’. The guidelines include, among others, the description of contents that should be included in the Programme at the level of each 
measure and they specify directly how to create a description of verifiability and controllability.  

Poland  (managing  authority  together  with  a  payment  agency)  conducted  an  ex  ante  assessment  of  verifiability  and  controllability  in 
respect of specific measures within the RDP 2014–2020. The assessment was carried out taking into account practices, experience and 
control results from the previous programming period. The probability that a risk affecting implementation occurs (a risk related to the 
implementation of such instrument)  was identified for each support instrument, along with mitigation measures, if such risk occurred, 
and the general assessment was made in terms of verifiability and controllability.  

After  the  assessment  of  the  measures  entitled  ‘Quality  systems  for  agricultural  products  and  foodstuffs’,  ‘Payments  to  areas  facing 
natural or other specific constraints’ and the sub-measure ‘Payments to farmers eligible for support under small farms system (Payments 
to farmers handing over small farms)’, no risks for implementation were identified. 

For other measures, difficulties in verification and control were found, and mitigation measures were proposed, which are supposed to 
eliminate such difficulties in the future. Specific elements regarding verifiability and controllability were included in the description of 
each Programme instrument. 

Pursuant to the provisions of Regulation No 1305/2013, Poland is obliged to assess the measures within the Programme throughout its 
implementation in terms of verification and control, and to improve them if necessary. Therefore, the assessment of solutions adopted is 
carried out on an ongoing basis, and the provisions regulating the implementation of the RDP 2014–2020 are amended if necessary. 

Question 1.3.2. 

Yes. 

The  more  difficult  it  is  to  satisfy  the  grounds  for  payment  (a  large  number  of  documents,  complicated  procedures,  incomprehensible 
procedures, etc.), the bigger is the number of errors arising from lack of knowledge, and the wider is the room for manoeuvre for any 
entities that want to circumvent a given provision. 

Poland agrees that measures other than sectoral ones, i.e. those where aid is granted mainly as the reimbursement of expenditure, are 
more prone to the occurrence of errors and their identification, among others due to their complex investment nature, public procurement 
procedure, assessment of the reasonableness of costs, as well as different provisions on control that apply to them, as specified for the 
financial perspective for 2014–2020 in the Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 809/2014 of 17 July 2014 laying down rules 
for  the  application  of  Regulation  (EU)  No  1306/2013  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  with  regard  to  the  integrated 
administration and control system, rural development measures and cross compliance. 

Relationship 
between  the  basis 
for  payment  and 
levels  of  error  in 
the  major  EU 
spending 
areas 
(common 
agricultural 
policy, 
regional 
and  urban  policy, 
employment, 
social  affairs  and 

358 

 
 
 
inclusion). 

Question 2.1.1. 

Poland created a comprehensive national development management system that includes the following strategic documents: 

Links  between  EU 
the 
in 
priorities 
the 
of 
context 
Europe 2020 
strategy,  including 
Horizon 2020,  and 
national priorities. 

 
a  long-term  national  development  strategy  –  Long-Term  National  Development  Strategy.  Poland  2030.  The  third  wave  of 
modernity (DSRK), adopted by the Council of Ministers on 5 February 2013 – it specifies main trends, challenges and ideas for national 
development in a long-term perspective; 
 
medium-term national development strategy – SRK 2020, adopted by the Council of Ministers on 25 September 2012 – it is the 
most important document that specifies national development strategic objectives by 2020 and it is essential for defining development 
measures, including those that may be financed under the EU financial perspective for 2014–2020; 
 
nine  integrated,  cross-sector  strategies  aimed  at  achieving  identified  development  objectives:  Strategy  for  Innovation  and 
Efficiency  of  the  Economy  –  Dynamic  Poland  2020  (SIEG),  Human  Capital  Development  Strategy  (SRKL),  Transport  Development 
Strategy  by  2020  (with  perspective  to  2030)  (SRT),  Energy  Security  and  the  Environment  Strategy  (BEiŚ),  Efficient  State  Strategy 
(SSP), Social Capital Development Strategy  (SRKS), National Strategy for Regional Development  (KSRR), National Security System 
Development Strategy of the Republic of Poland (SRSBN RP), Strategy for Sustainable Development of Rural Areas, Agriculture and 
Fisheries (SZRWRiR). 
The medium-term national development strategy 2020 (SRK 2020) together with the nine integrated strategies is a benchmark for the 
achievement of national development objectives, both in the context of using national and EU funds. The national development objective 
as stated in the SRK 2020 is to strengthen and use economic, social and institutional capacities that ensure faster and sustainable national 
development and improve the quality of people's life. This strategic objective is to be pursued within the following areas: 

competitive economy, 
social and territorial cohesion, 
efficient and effective state. 

 
 
 
Five objectives of the SRK 2020 arising directly from Europe 2020 Strategy refers to: increasing employment, enhancing innovativeness 
(measured  by  an  increase  in  expenditure  on  R&D  in  general  and  by  an  increase  in  the  share  of  enterprises’  expenditure),  reducing 
greenhouse gases emissions and increasing renewable energy share in total energy consumption, increasing the level of education and 
supporting  social  inclusion.  The  remaining  SRK  2020  objectives  arising  from  national  characteristics  will  also  contribute  to  the 
implementation of EU2020 Strategy. 

Development objectives and priorities stated in the remaining national documents contribute, to a large extent, to the objectives set in 
Europe  2020  Strategy  and  they  comply  with  them:  for  the  employment  objective  –  measures  are  provided  for  mainly  in  the  Human 
Capital  Development  Strategy;  for  the  innovation  objective  –  measures  are  provided  for  mainly  in  the  Strategy  for  Innovation  and 
Efficiency  of  the  Economy,  for  the  energy  and  climate  objective  –  measures  are  provided  for  mainly  in  the  Energy  Security  and  the 
Environment Strategy, for the education objective – measures are provided for mainly in the Human Capital Development Strategy and 
the Strategy for Innovation and Efficiency of the Economy, while for the poverty objective  – measures are provided for mainly in the 
Human  Capital  Development  Strategy.  Additionally,  the  achievement  of  Europe  2020  Strategy  will  be  supported  by  the  remaining 
integrated strategies and implementing documents pertaining to such strategies. 

359 

 
 
The National Reform Programme specifies the method of implementing the measures set in the strategic documents so that they comply 
at the same time with the priorities of common measures at the EU level. Each year the European Commission analyses the progress in 
the implementation of the National Reform Programme and formulates recommendations (Country Specific Recommendations – CSR), 
which  constitute  the  ground  for  the  National  Reform  Programme’s  update  for  the  subsequent  year  after  they  are  adopted  by  the  EU 
Council. 

The progress in achieving target levels envisaged by EU2020 Strategy will be monitored at national and regional levels. To this end, the 
Central Statistical Office of Poland created the system for strategic monitoring called STRATEG, which collects monitoring indicators 
from all national and regional strategies as well as operational programmes, including figures since 2003 that are obtained from Eurostat, 
Central Statistical Office of Poland and other sources. 

National priorities relating to the development of agriculture and rural areas are specified in the Strategy for Sustainable Development of 
Rural Areas, Agriculture and Fisheries for 2012–2020 (SZRWRiR). The links between the strategy objectives and EU2020 Strategy are 
shown in Annex 1 to the material.  

Additionally,  the  objectives  of  the  Strategy  for  Sustainable  Development  of  Rural  Areas,  Agriculture  and  Fisheries  comply  with  the 
current directions of development in the European Union as set in Broad guidelines for the economic policies of the Member States and 
of the Union. Integrated guidelines for Europe 2020 Strategy, and in particular: 

Guideline 4: Optimising support for R&D and innovation, strengthening the knowledge triangle and unleashing the potential of 

 
the digital economy; 

 

 

 

 

Guideline 5: Improving resource efficiency and reducing greenhouse gases; 

Guideline 6: Improving the business and consumer environment, and modernising the industrial base; 

Guideline 7: Increasing labour market participation and reducing structural unemployment; 

Guideline 8: Developing a skilled workforce responding to labour market needs, promoting job quality and lifelong learning; 

Guideline 9: Improving the performance of education and training systems at all levels and increasing participation in tertiary 

 
education; 

 

Guideline 10: Promoting social inclusion and combating poverty. 

The  intervention  directions  included  in  the  strategy  form  a  set  of  measures  to  be  taken  in  order  to  achieve  the  set  objectives  at  the 
national  level;  however,  regional  differences  between  rural  areas  will  shape  the  hierarchy  and  selection  of  intervention  directions  in 
respect of the needs and development opportunities of a given area/region, which has been  partially presented in the strategy through 
stating specific objectives broken down into territories. 

The  results  of  implementing  the  Strategy  for  Sustainable  Development  of  Rural  Areas,  Agriculture  and  Fisheries  for  2012–2020  are 
summarised in implementation reports. The reports are published on the website of the Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development. 
Indicators  specified  to  measure  the  implementation  of  the  Strategy  for  Sustainable  Development  of  Rural  Areas,  Agriculture  and 

360 

 
 
Fisheries (SZRWRiR) are presented below. 

The main indicators relating to the main objective of the SZRWRiR: 

W1 = share of people living below the relative poverty threshold in rural areas in the total number of people living in rural areas  

W2 = proportion of inhabitants of rural areas who assess the economic situation of their household as rather good or very good  

W3 = indicator of professional activity in rural areas  

Ancillary indicators assigned to specific objectives of the SZRWRiR strategy  

W11 = employment rate of people at the age of 15 or more in rural areas  

W12 = the highest difference in the mean result of the examination taken at the end of primary school in rural areas / mean result of the 
examination taken at the end of primary school in urban areas  

W21 = proportion of households in rural areas which, when assessing their environment of living, indicated that it is very difficult to 
access public transport services  

W22 = proportion of the length of rural public roads with enhanced paved surface in the total length of public roads  

W23 = proportion of rural population at the age of 16–74 who regularly (at least once a week) uses the Internet in the total number of 
rural population  

W24 = proportion of children at the age of 3–5 covered by kindergarten education in rural facilities  

W25 = proportion of people using water and sewage systems in rural areas in the total rural population  

W31 = proportion of agriculture and foodstuffs samples of inappropriate commercial quality  

W32 = surface of agricultural areas maintained in good agricultural condition  

W41 = share of the surface of agricultural areas located within farms below minimum effective production scale in the total surface of 
agricultural areas located within farms carrying out agricultural activity in Poland  

W42 = average monthly income per 1 person from an individual farm in agriculture / average monthly income per 1 person from self-
employment  

W43 = value of agricultural products and foodstuffs exports per 1 inhabitant of Poland  

W44 = share of expenditure on R&D in the area of agriculture in the total internal expenditure on R&D in Poland  

W51 = water quality indicator  

W52  =  share  of  greenhouse  gases  emission  from  agriculture  expressed  as  CO2  equivalent  in  the  total  greenhouse  gases  emission  in 
Poland  

361 

 
 
W53 = change in the farmland bird index (FBI) 

For Horizon 2020, the geographical analysis of programme beneficiaries shows extremely low participation of EU10 Member States in 
the use of funds from the programme. It may result from the fact that the programme is not targeted at exploring cohesion-related issues 
and it does not focus on studies related to development policy issues.  

Question 2.1.2. 

to 
synergies 

Measures 
pursue 
and 
complementarities 
ESI 
between 
Funds 
and 
national 
programmes . 

During  the  evaluation  of  the  Partnership  Agreement,  which  specifies  the  intervention  strategy  of  European  funds  under  three  EU 
policies: Cohesion Policy, Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) and Common Fisheries Policy (CFP) in Poland in 2014–2020, the main 
focus  was  on  the  improvement  of  internal  consistency  of  intervention  logic,  proper  identification  and  correct  definition  of  expected 
results of its implementation in the context of Europe 2020 Strategy, and among others these conditions of efficiency and effectiveness 
of ESIF whose scope exceeds the Partnership Agreement’s area of intervention, including complementarity with measures financed from 
national  funds.  Intervention  coordinating  mechanisms  defined  at  the  level  of  the  Partnership  Agreement  serve  such  purpose.  It  is 
implemented from the programming phase, through the implementation phase to the closure of aid.  

The  key  instrument  that  ensures  a  coherent  and  complementary  system  of  programming  documents  for  2014–2020  as  well  as 
mechanisms and rules governing their implementation consists in granting the minister responsible for regional development, by means 
of a statutory act, powers to draft the Partnership Agreement and to issue opinions on any programmes that implement the Partnership 
Agreement in terms of their compliance with the Agreement and their modifications as well as to negotiate programmes that implement 
the Partnership Agreement. Additionally, the strategic function in respect of development policy performed by the minister responsible 
for  regional  development  ensures  coordinated  development  interventions  from  various  resources,  in  particular  from  ESIF.  The 
coordination at the level of the Partnership Agreement, which is a benchmark for all documents related to the financial perspective for 
2014–2020, is implemented in two basic dimensions: the strategic and the management one. 

Strategic coordination tools: 

Partnership Agreement Coordinating Committee (KK UP); 
Cohesion policy programmes designation institution; 
Horizontal guidelines of the minister responsible for regional development; 
National Evaluation Unit; 
Common List of Key Indicators; 
Strategic framework for specific types of interventions. 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Management coordination tools: 

Interdepartmental Team for Programming and Implementing Structural Funds and the Cohesion Fund; 
Comments, recommendations, guides, instructions, benchmarking, regular coordination meetings; 
Measures that ensure system coherence, e.g. a common form of the detailed description of priority axes (SzOOP), verification of 

 
 
 
management and control systems (OSZIK) descriptions, regular analyses of administrative potential; 
 
Programme guidelines, detailed description of priority axes, implementation instructions, interinstitutional agreements on the 

Monitoring Committees for specific operational programmes; 

362 

 
 
Question 2.2.1. 

Performance 
measurement 
system  to  link  EU 
measures, 
operations 
projects 
priorities/Europe 
2020 
and targets. 

or 
to  EU 

objectives 

appointment of the Intermediary Body or Implementing Body, guides. 

The expected results of interventions from the funds will be monitored with the use of an indicator system. The progress in achieving 
strategic  objectives  will  be  measured  with  a  set  of  result  indicators  at  the  level  of  the  Partnership  Agreement  that  specifies  Poland’s 
obligations arising from Europe 2020 Strategy and national strategic documents, including SRK 2020. For these indicators, the expected 
progress  by  2020  and  2023  was  estimated  and  verified  within  the  PA  ex  ante  evaluation,  and  so  was  the  impact  of  the  ESIF  on  the 
forecast figures. The actual impact of intervention on the observed change will be determined during the PA ex post evaluation.  

At  the  level  of  operational  programmes’  priorities,  specific  objectives  will  be  quantified  with  the  use  of  a  limited  number  of  result 
indicators that comply with strategic objectives specified in the PA. 

The  third  level  aimed  at  measuring  the  effects  of  interventions within  operational  programmes  will  be  a  set  of  indicators  adequate  to 
projects  implemented  –  the  Common  List  of  Key  Indicators.  The  Common  List  of  Key  Indicators  is  coherent  for  all  operational 
programmes and it is a catalogue of obligatory indicators of output and indicators of direct results (arising directly from the intervention 
or related directly to the scope of intervention), which were defined at the horizontal level so that they can be aggregated at the national 
level, and they are common for all operational programmes. The set of indicators together with definitions was created early  enough, 
which  enabled  better  coordination  and  concentration  of  measures,  results  aggregability,  and  elimination  of  inadequate  selection  of 
indicators to describe specific priorities and measures. The list includes indicators common at the European level (common indicators) 
specified  in  Regulations  relating  to  specific  funds.  It  is  possible  to  add  new  indicators  to  the  Common  List  of  Key  Indicators  or  to 
establish ancillary indicators (specific for a given area) to monitor the effects of the entire operational programme. 

In  the  period  preceding  the  commencement  of  the  PA  implementation,  the  minister  responsible  for  regional  development  conducted 
intensive work on developing a coherent system of indicators; among others, a commentary to the operational programme template was 
created  which  includes  definitions,  instructions  and  explanations  to  support  managing  authorities  in  the  issue  of  indicators.  An 
evaluation  test  on  the  coherence  of  implementation  and  indicators  framework  in  the programmes  was  commissioned  by  the  Ministry. 
These actions were accompanied by the necessary mainstreaming of indicators-related matters in the Polish legal system (Act of 11 July 
2014 on the principles of implementing cohesion policy programmes financed within the 2014–2020 financial perspective – Article 26, 
which  refers  to  the  powers  of  the  minister  responsible  for  regional  development  to  establish  the  list  of  key  indicators  for  projects 
implemented within specific thematic objectives, and which points out the necessity to establish target values for the indicators set in a 
given operational programme or in a detailed description of priority axes). 

To  monitor  the  PA  objectives  as  well  as  other  strategic  documents,  ‘System  of  indicators  for  development  policy  monitoring’ 
(STRATEG)  developed  and  operated  by  the  Main  Statistical  Office  will  be  used.  The  system  may  be  accessed  through  the  Main 
Statistical Office’s website and through the website of the ministry responsible for regional development. The system is fed  with data 
obtained from the public statistics system and other sources, e.g. from the Managing Authorities for operational programmes, including 
regional programmes. 

The results of support provided under the RDP (PROW) will be monitored based on the system of indicators specified at the EU level 
and on the domestic indicators that reflect the characteristics of the Polish RDP (PROW). A separate list of indicators will  be used for 

363 

 
 
the RYBY [FISH] Operational Programme for 2014–2020.  

New systemic solutions were adopted in the area of Polish programme financed from the EAFRD. 

Within national legislation, pursuant to Article 10(4) of the Act of 20 February 2015 on the support of rural development from the funds 
of the EAFRD, under the RDP for 2014–2020, the Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development issued an ordinance of  13 August 
2015 on the data required for the appropriate monitoring of implementation and evaluation of the Rural Development Programme  for 
2014–2020.  The  ordinance  specifies,  among  others,  the  types  of  reports,  their  scopes  and  deadlines  for  submitting  them  to  specific 
institutions  involved  in  the  implementation  and  monitoring  of  the  programme,  with  a  view  to  ensure  correctness,  effectiveness  and 
efficiency of programme management as well as provision of data specified in Annex VII to the Commission Implementing Regulation 
(EU)  No  808/2014  of  17  July  2014,  including  such  data  that  enable  the  progress  of  programme  financial  implementation  to  be 
monitored. Within specific reports, data (in a form of indicators) on, among others, effects and results completed within specific support 
instruments (measures, sub-measures, operation types) of the RDP for 2014–2020 are gathered and forwarded. The data are included in 
sets of monitoring tables developed in detail based on aid applications forms, agreement forms, payment application forms and operation 
implementation  reports,  separately  for  each  instrument.  The  data  are  aggregated  in  IT  systems  of  the  ARiMR  and  then  they  are 
transmitted to the Managing Authority three times a year, i.e. together with interim statements as at 30 April and 31 August of a given 
year and an annual report as at 31 December of a given year. Subsequently, the Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development  as the 
Managing Authority for the RDP for 2014–2020 submits to the European Commission, by 30 June of a given year, an annual report from 
the programme implementation together with tables completed in SFC 2014 system which refer to financial, output and result indicators. 
Additionally, the European Commission obliged Member States to provide reports on monitoring of any obligations entered into, i.e. by 
31  October  of  a  given  year,  a  Member  State  must  submit  data  for  the  period  from  January  to  August,  and  by  31  January  of  the 
subsequent year – for the period from September to December of the previous year. 

Moreover,  pursuant  to  Article  14f(5)  of  the  Act  of  6  December  2006  on  the  rules  of  conducting  development  policy,  the  minister 
responsible for rural development and the minister responsible for fisheries submit to the minister responsible for regional development, 
within six months after the end of each year, an annual report on the implementation of programmes aimed at performing the partnership 
agreement within the powers of such ministers. The first annual report covering 2014 and 2015 is submitted in 2016. The last annual 
report covering 2023 is to be submitted by 31 January 2025. 

Aggregated data from specific RDP 2014–2020 support instruments are assigned to specific programme objectives (focus area), and then 
these are assigned to six programme priorities.  

While drafting the Polish Partnership Agreement, the following assumptions were made in respect of achieving specific objectives of the 
PA and their respective priorities within Europe 2020 Strategy (Table 2 of the PA, version of December 2015).  

It was assumed that instruments implemented within Priority 1 Facilitation of the transfer of knowledge and innovations in agriculture, 
forestry and rural areas of the RDP 2014–2020, i.e.: 

Measure 1 Transfer of knowledge and information activities,  

Measure 2 Consulting services, agricultural farm management services and replacement services as well as  

364 

 
 
Measure 16 Cooperation  

will  comply  with  the  pursuit  of  PA’s  Thematic  Objective  1  Strengthening  of  scientific  research,  technological  development  and 
innovations, while this objective follows the Priority entitled ‘Smart growth’ within Europe 2020 Strategy. 

On the other hand, the instruments listed below, which are implemented within the RDP 2014–2020, i.e.: 

Sub-measure 6.3 Start-up aid for the development of small holdings, 

Sub-measure 6.1 Start-up aid for young farmers, 

Sub-measure 3.1 Support for accession to quality systems, 

Sub-measure 3.2 Support for information and promotion activities performed by the groups of manufacturers in the internal market, 

Measure 9 Forming groups and organisations of manufacturers as well as  

Sub-measure 4.2 Supporting investments in agricultural products processing, trading in them and their development  

will contribute to the achievement of PA’s Thematic Objective 3 Enhancing the competitiveness of SMEs, agricultural sector (in respect 
of the EAFRD) as well as fisheries and aquaculture sector (in respect of the EMFF), while this objective follows ‘Smart Growth’ and 
‘Inclusive Growth’ priorities of Europe 2020 Strategy. 

PA’s  Thematic  Objective  4  Supporting  the  shift  towards  a  low-carbon  economy  in  all  sectors,  which  follows  ‘Sustainable  growth’ 
Priority of Europe 2020 Strategy will be supported by instruments such as: 

Sub-measure  7.2  Supporting  investments  related  to  creating,  enhancing  and  developing  all  types  of  small  infrastructure,  including 
investments in renewable energy and energy saving; 

Sub-measure  7.4  Supporting  investments  in  creating,  enhancing  and  developing  basic  local  services  for  rural  population,  including 
leisure, culture and related infrastructure; 

Sub-measure 6.4 Supporting investments in creating and developing non-agricultural business activity; 

Sub-measure 6.2 Start-up aid for non-agricultural business activity in rural areas. 

PA's  Thematic  objective  5  Promoting  adjustments  to  climate  changes,  prevention  of  risk  and  risk  management,  which  follows 
‘Sustainable growth’ priority of Europe 2020 Strategy, will be supported by instruments such as: 

Measure 8. Investments in the development of forest areas and improvement of forest viability; 

Sub-measure 10.1 Payments under agri-environmental and climate commitments; 

Sub-measure 4.1 Supporting investments in agricultural farms; operations such as Investments in farms located in areas endangered with 
nitrate pollution (OSN); 

Sub-measure  5.1  Supporting  investments  in  prevention  measures  whose  aim  is  to  limit  the  effects  of  likely  natural  disasters,  adverse 

365 

 
 
climatic events, and disasters; 

Sub-measure 5.2 Supporting investments in the restoration of agricultural land and production potential damaged by natural disasters, 
adverse climatic events, and disasters. 

PA's  Thematic  Objective  6  Preserving  and  protecting  natural  environment  and  supporting  resources  efficiency,  in  pursuit  of  the  EU 
flagship project of Europe 2020 Strategy's ‘Sustainable growth’ priority – ‘A resource-efficient Europe’ will be supported by instruments 
such as: 

Measure 8 Investments in the development of forest areas and improvement of forest viability; 

Sub-measure 10.1 Payments under agri-environmental and climate commitments; 

Sub-measure 10.2 Supporting protection and sustainable use and development of genetic resources in agriculture; 

Sub-measure 4.1 Supporting investments in agricultural farms; operations such as Investments in farms located in areas endangered with 
nitrate pollution (OSN); 

Sub-measure  4.1  Supporting  investments  in  agricultural  farms;  operations  such  as  Investments  in  farms  located  within  Natura  2000 
areas; 

Sub-measure 11.1 Payments for the conversion into ecological practices and methods in agriculture; 

Sub-measure 11.2 Payments for maintaining ecological practices and methods; 

Sub-measure 13.1 Compensation in mountain areas – LFA payments; 

Sub-measure 13.2 Compensation for other areas facing specific natural constraints; 

Sub-measure  7.2  Supporting  investments  related  to  creating,  enhancing  and  developing  all  types  of  small  infrastructure,  including 
investments in renewable energy and energy saving, such as water and sewage management operations; 

Sub-measure  7.4  Supporting  investments  in  creating,  enhancing  and  developing  basic  local  services  for  rural  population,  including 
leisure, culture and related infrastructure; operations such as Investments in facilities serving cultural functions or shaping public space 
and 

Sub-measure  7.4  Supporting  investments  in  creating,  enhancing  and  developing  basic  local  services  for  rural  population,  including 
leisure, culture and related infrastructure; operations such as Investments in markets or buildings designed to promote local products. 

Implementing PA's Thematic Objective 8 Promoting permanent and high quality employment and supporting employees mobility, which 
at the same time follows the Council’s recommendation to ‘decrease unemployment among young people (…), combat segmentation in 
the labour market (…)’ as well as the recommendation to ‘reinforce efforts to increase the participation of women in the labour market, 
in particular through investing in affordable childcare and education, through ensuring stable financing and qualified staff; supporting 
pension reforms with actions encouraging to employ older workers’; also, Objective 8 corresponds with the vision included in  Europe 
2020 Strategy, according to which the new economic model should be based not only on innovativeness and sustainable development, 

366 

 
 
but  also  on  socially  inclusive  economic  growth  (higher  accessibility  of  employment).  Therefore,  it  was  assumed  that  the  following 
instruments will comply with the RDP 2014–2020: 

Sub-measure 6.2 Start-up aid for non-agricultural business activity in rural areas; 

Sub-measure 6.4 Supporting investments in creating and developing non-agricultural business activity; 

Sub-measure  6.5  Payments  for  farmers  eligible  for  the  system  for  small  farms  who  handed  over  their  farms  permanently  to  another 
farmer. 

PA's Thematic Objective 9 Preserving and protecting natural environment and supporting resources efficiency, which contributes to the 
‘Sustained and socially inclusive economic growth’ priority of Europe 2020 Strategy, will be supported by such instruments as:  

Sub-measure  7.2  Supporting  investments  related  to  creating,  enhancing  and  developing  all  types  of  small  infrastructure,  including 
investments in renewable energy and energy saving, such as water and sewage management operations; 

Sub-measure  7.2  Supporting  investments  related  to  creating,  enhancing  and  developing  all  types  of  small  infrastructure,  including 
investments in renewable energy and energy saving; operations such as Construction or modernisation of local roads; 

Under Measure 19 Support for local development within the LEADER initiative; implementing  

Sub-measure 19.1 Preparatory support, 

Sub-measure 19.2 Support for the implementation of operations within a community-driven local development strategy, 

Sub-measure 19.3 Preparation and implementation of measures in the area of cooperating with the local action group and  

Sub-measure 19.4 Support for the current costs and activation. 

PA's  Thematic  Objective  10  Investing  in  education,  training  and  vocational  training  for  the  purpose  of  gaining  skills  and  life  long-
learning, which implements ‘Smart, sustainable and inclusive growth’ priority of Europe 2020 Strategy, will be supported by instruments 
such as:  

Measure 1 Transfer of knowledge and information activities;  

Measure 2 Consulting services, agricultural farm management services and replacement services. 

The  last  PA's  Thematic  Objective,  11  Strengthening  institutional  capacity  of  public  institutions  and  stakeholders  as  well  as  public 
administration efficiency, which complies with the recommendations of Europe 2020 Strategy relating to the necessity to continue the 
programme of smart regulation  of their quality and efficiency,  will be reflected by instruments such as  sub-measure  20.1 Support for 
technical assistance (other than the national rural network). 

Question 2.2.2. 

Framework for the 

At  the  general  level,  evaluation  system  obligations  are  regulated  by  the  provisions  of  Regulations  and  the  European  Commission's 
guidelines.  The  details  and  the  rules  of  Cohesion  Policy  evaluation  system  functioning  in  Poland  will  be  included  in  respective 

367 

 
 
of 
management 
ESI 
in 
Funds 
order  to  achieve  a 
result-oriented 
system  and  impact 
of EU projects. 

guidelines issued by the minister responsible for regional development. 

The evaluation process is  conducted by evaluation units located  in public administration entities that implement  the Cohesion Policy, 
CAP and CFP. In particular, this includes the following entities: 

 
National  Evaluation  Unit  –  located  in  the  respective  ministry  of  the  minister  responsible  for  regional  development  –  it  is  a 
central  unit  responsible  among  others  for  coordinating  the  evaluation  process  (including  evaluation  plans)  within  the  entire  Cohesion 
Policy, conducting horizontal evaluations at the PA level as well as meta-analyses and meta-evaluations, drafting standards, guidelines 
and manuals, creating evaluation culture, monitoring the evaluation process, in particular using evaluation studies results, coordinating 
international cooperation among others; 
 
Evaluation units appointed by the Managing Authorities for specific operational programmes to carry out the evaluation process. 
They are responsible among others for coordinating and implementing the process of operational programme evaluation (also drafting 
the OP evaluation plan), cooperating with the National Evaluation Unit, actively participating in the work of thematic groups aimed at 
developing methodologies and conducting cross-sectional studies within thematic areas, animating and monitoring the use of evaluation 
studies  results  from  a  given  operational  programme,  reporting  to  the  European  Commission,  Monitoring  Committee  and  National 
Evaluation  Unit,  creating  capacity  and  evaluation  culture  at  the  operational  programme  level  and  others;  in  connection  with  the 
launching  of  two-fund  operational  programmes,  it  is  of  vital  importance  that  Evaluation  Units  ensure  the  coordination  of  such 
programmes’ evaluation process, both in functional and institutional dimensions; 
 
and standards developed by the National Evaluation Unit and Evaluation Units at the level of an operational programme. 
A significant role in the evaluation process is also played by Monitoring Committees that operate at the level of operational programmes 
and Partnership Agreements. The Monitoring Committees’ responsibility is to approve evaluation plans (and changes thereof, if any) as 
well as to analyse implementation progress. The Monitoring Committees are also involved in discussing evaluation results and their use.. 
Thanks  to  the  Monitoring  Committee’s  participation  in  the  evaluation  process,  and  in  particular  thanks  to  the  participation  of  its 
members representing  social partners, compliance  with the partnership principle is also  ensured  in the process. Evaluation  studies are 
conducted  by  internal  and  external  experts,  who  are  functionally  independent  of  institutions  responsible  for  the  implementation  of 
programmes.  To  ensure  evaluation  process  validity,  each  Evaluation  Unit  within  the  system  must  possess  adequate  resources,  in 
particular adequate staff capacity. 

Evaluation units acting within other institutions of the Cohesion Policy system, which conduct evaluations following guidelines 

PA  and  OP  evaluation  process  is  based  on  evaluation  plans  drafted  by  the  National  Evaluation  Unit  (PA  Evaluation  Plan  with  cross-
sectional and horizontal studies for the ESIF) and by the Evaluation Unit based on the recommendations of the National Evaluation Unit 
(OP Evaluation Plans).  

The implementation of evaluation plans is monitored by the European Commission and, additionally, by the Monitoring Committee and 
the  National  Evaluation  Unit.  The  Managing  Authority  is  obliged  to  report  the  progress  in  implementing  the  evaluation  plan  to  the 
entities, stating in particular to what extent the recommendations are implemented.  

 
 

Types of evaluation studies conducted. 
Use of evaluation studies results. 

368 

 
 
In accordance with the European Commission’s guidelines, in the 2014–2020 perspective, the emphasis is put on the use of results from 
evaluation studies. Having that in mind, the National Evaluation Unit makes results of all evaluations carried out as part of the Cohesion 
Policy available to the public. The Managing Authority for the RDP and the Managing Authority for the EMFF make the results of all 
evaluations conducted within their respective programmes (RDP and OP Ryby) available to the public.  

The National Evaluation Unit conducts the strategic monitoring of the extent to which the recommendations from evaluation studies are 
used within the Recommendation Implementation System database. 

Moreover, there are performance reserves to ensure that the support system is result-oriented. For instance, pursuant to Article 20, 21 
and 22 of Regulation (EU) No 1303/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council, the Managing Authority for the RDP 2014–
2020  established  the  performance  reserve  of  EUR 515 896 849,  which  constitutes  6 %  of  the  Programme’s  budget,  as  referred  to  in 
Chapter 7 (Description of performance framework) of the RDP 2014–2020. The performance reserve will be subject to results review 
based on specific financial indicators and output indicators (‘milestones’) referring to specific priorities – in 2019 (according to data as at 
the end of 2018) and in 2024 (according to data as at the end of 2023). Milestones indicators are specified at the EU level, and their 
target values were estimated and included in the Programme. In accordance with the recommendations of the European Commission, the 
indicators  are  measured  in  reference  to  completed  operations  (where  completed  operations  mean  the  operations  for  which  the  final 
payment was made). 

In the case of multi-annual measures/sub-measures (i.e. 3.1, 8, 9, 10 and 11 as well as measure 13 of the RDP), the completed operation 
means  an  operation  for  which  the  payment  was  made;  however,  it  does  not  cover  operations  for  which  only  advance  financing  or  an 
advance payment was made. 

Pursuant  to  the  results  review  of  the  Programme,  the  European  Commission  will  identify  the  priorities  whose  assumed  indicators 
(‘milestones’)  were  achieved,  which  means  that  85  %  of  the  indicator  was  achieved.  If  three  indicators  were  specified  for  a  given 
priority, the objective is deemed achieved when two indicators reached 85 %, and the third reached at least 75 %. 

If the assumed indicators are not achieved, the Member State is obliged to propose to the European Commission the priorities to which 
performance  reserve  funds  are  to  be  moved  from  the  priority  whose  milestones  were  not  achieved.  At  the  same  time,  in  the  case  of 
‘serious failure’ in achieving the assumed indicators’ targets within a given priority (below 65 % of the target assumed), the European 
Commission  may  temporarily  suspend  interim  payments  for  the  priority.  If  three  indicators  were  specified  for  a  given  priority,  the 
‘serious failure’ means a situation where the minimum of 65 % was not achieved for two of the indicators. 

Where the European Commission, based on the examination of the final implementation report of the programme, establishes a ‘serious 
failure’ to achieve the target indicators at the end of the Programme implementation, it may apply financial corrections in respect of a 
given priority (Article 22(7) of Regulation No 1303/2013). 

Question 2.2.3. 

Yes. 

Member 
State 
actions  to  define 

The matter was raised when the answer to question 2.2.1 in the matter of result indicators was provided. 

Additionally, in PA and OP ex ante evaluation process, possibly adequate identification of expected results at the global PA level and at 

369 

 
 
or  improve  result 
indicators  at  EU 
project level. 

the level of operational programmes’ specific objectives was ensured, and in particular estimated result indicators to be achieved in 2023 
were specified. 

The  Ministry  of  Development  initiated  close  cooperation  with  the  Central  Statistical  Office.  The  cooperation  covers,  among  others, 
preparing  and  implementing  a  system  to  monitor  development  processes  and  strategic  objectives,  and  in  particular  creating  and 
maintaining an indicator database (STRATEG) (for result indicators) as well as making it available, and developing new measurements 
useful in the monitoring of Cohesion Policy results, also at regional levels. 

For the RDP 2014–2020, the list of indicators included in Annex VII to the Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 808/2014 of 
17 July 2014, including the result indicators, was developed during a series of Rural Development Committee’s meetings attended by 
Members States and the European Commission's representatives. As the list is not exhaustive, Annex 5 to the RDP 2014–2020 includes 
additional output indicators and result indicators that reflect the specific features of the Polish RDP 2014–2020. 

Question 2.2.4. 

The matter was raised when the answer to question 2.2.1 in the matter of result indicators was provided. 

Performance 
measurement 
system  to  monitor 
the 
achievement 
objectives  at  EU 
measure, 
operations 
or 
project  level  and 
the 
to  monitor 
output  and  result 
indicators  at  EU 
measure, 
operations 
project level. 

or 

Moreover, in accordance with the provisions of Partnership Agreement 2014–2020, the expected results of interventions are monitored 
within a three-level system of indicators: 

Result  indicators  at  the  PA  level,  which  define  Polish  obligations  under  Europe  2020  Strategy  and  national  strategic 

1. 
documents. 
2. 
Result indicators at the level of OP priority axes, in accordance with Article 27(4)(c) of Regulation No 1303/2013. 
3. 
Output  indicators  relating  to  the  operations  supported  in  accordance  with  Article  27(4)(b)  of  Regulation  No 1303/2013, 
including  the  European  Commission's  common  output  indicators  as  specified  in  Regulations  relevant  for  specific  funds  (common 
indicators)  as  well  as  indicators  typical  of  a  given  programme.  To  ensure  the  cohesion  of  monitoring  OP  substantive  progress  at  the 
national level, in accordance with Article 26 of the Act of 11 July 2014 on the principles of implementing Cohesion Policy programmes 
financed  within  the  2014–2020  financial  perspective,  the  minister  responsible  for  regional  development  established  a  list  of  key 
indicators monitored at the project level, which includes the indicators that are common at the European level (common indicators) and 
key indicators established at the national level. 

Question 3.1.1. 

Yes. 

for 

Framework  or  a 
system 
the 
follow-up of ECA's 
recommendations 
addressed 
to 
Member  States  in 
annual 
Court's 

The  ECA’s  recommendations  are  implemented  by  specific  Managing  Authorities  in  cooperation  with  relevant  Directorates  of  the 
European  Commission. Follow-up actions taken in connection with recommendations addressed  by the ECA to Poland  are monitored 
through the regular completion of forms submitted each year by the European Commission after the annual budget execution report is 
published by the ECA. Departments responsible for the thematic area of a given report are in charge of implementing recommendations 
formulated  by  the  ECA  in  special  reports.  There  is,  however,  no  uniform  system  to  monitor  the  follow-up  actions  taken  by  specific 
entities. 

370 

 
 
special 

and 
reports. 
and 
Monitoring 
reporting 
on 
progress  achieved 
towards 
to 
implementation  of 
Court's 
recommendations 

Additionally, as emphasised in the answer to the question in 1.2.1., on the request of the European Commission, Poland is obliged to 
update the plan  of corrective actions taken by the ARiMR  in respect of follow-up actions related to national  action plans on an error 
indicator.  The  national  action  plan  includes  information  on  preventive  and  corrective  actions  related  to  the  errors  made  and  error 
indicators which serve to monitor the effects of preventive and corrective actions taken. The plan is to minimise the occurrence of errors 
identified  during  the audit performed  by,  among  others, the European Commission or the European Court of Auditors by introducing 
appropriate preventive and corrective actions as well as monitoring the effectiveness of the actions/solutions adopted. 

The  last  national  corrective  action  plan  for  Poland  (5th  update  of  the  action  plan)  was  drafted  and  submitted  to  the  European 
Commission in February 2016. 

371 

 
 
 
 
 
Portugal 

Question 1.1.1 

Main  root  causes 
in  the  major  EU 
areas 
spending 
(common 
agricultural 
policy, 
regional 
and  urban  policy, 
employment, 
social  affairs  and 
inclusion)  for  the 
persisting 
risks 
and errors pointed 
out by the ECA. 

Common agricultural policy 

NB: In order to develop the replies, the following non-exhaustive list of examples for 
root causes of legality and regularity errors in EU expenditure may be considered 

Not 
relevant 

Relevant 
in some 
respect 

Relevant 
in most 
respect 

Fully 
relevant 

  number and complexity of rules and gold-plating 

 

incorrect transposition of applicable EU legislation into national laws 

 

failure to observe the legal and procedural requirements stemming from 
EU and national legislation and rules 

  sufficient knowledge in applying procurement rules or State aid rules or 
other  applicable  EU  legislation  and  rules  (including  conditions  and 
eligibility  criteria  for  the  rural  development  measures,  simplified  cost 
options,  reasonableness  of  costs,  result-oriented  agri-environment 
payments) 

  complex eligibility rule 

  weaknesses  in  the  set  of  eligibility  rules  that  may  lead  to  potential  for 

circumventing them 

 

insufficient quality and up-date of the Land Parcel Identification System 
(LPIS) 

  mistakes in the aid applications 

  continued risks of misinterpretation of what is the eligible area for the 

basic payment scheme  

372 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

inefficient sanction mechanism for non-compliance or low sanction rate 
for non-compliance 

  need  of  raising  awareness,  targeted  training,  and,  development  and 
delivery  of  detailed  methodological  support  and  guidance  for  national 
and regional authorities and final beneficiaries 

  need of more or better resources and administrative capacity building 

  need  of  an  improved  quality  of  key  aspects  of  the  supervisory  and 
control  systems  (better  design  and/or  performance  of  administrative 
checks  and  on-the-spot  controls  and/or  increase  of  the  effectiveness  of 
the  work  carried  out  by  management  verifications,  audit  authorities, 
paying agencies and certification bodies) 

  better use of the information necessary to detect and correct available in 
the supporting documents, as well as at the level of the beneficiary or a 
national/regional body 

  sufficiently robust action plans developed to address both the causes of 
errors  and  the  weaknesses  in  the  management  and  control  systems 
and/or deficiencies in the EU spending 

 

insufficient  introduction  of  changes  by  new  legal  and/or  regulatory 
and/or procedural frameworks likely to have a significant impact on the 
causes of errors 

  need  of  more  initiatives  for  ensuring  a  genuine  simplification  for 

beneficiaries and programmes' implementation 

  knowledge and experience sharing, and dissemination of good practices 
improving  widespread 

at  national  and/or  at  EU 

level  on 

373 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
weaknesses/deficiencies/errors 

  expected  results  from  actions  that  will  not  always  be  evident  in  short-

term 

Regional And Urban Policy, Employment, Social Affairs And Inclusion 

NB: In order to develop the replies, the following non-exhaustive list of examples for 
root causes of legality and regularity errors in EU expenditure may be considered 

Not 
relevant 

Relevant 
in some 
respect 

Relevant 
in most 
respect 

Fully 
relevant 

  number and complexity of rules and gold-plating 

 

incorrect transposition of applicable EU legislation into national laws 

 

failure to observe the legal and procedural requirements stemming from 
EU and national legislation and rules 

  sufficient knowledge in applying procurement rules or State aid rules or 
other  applicable  EU  legislation  and  rules  (including  conditions  and 
eligibility  criteria  for  the  rural  development  measures,  simplified  cost 
options,  reasonableness  of  costs,  result-oriented  agri-environment 
payments) 

  complex eligibility rule 

  weaknesses  in  the  set  of  eligibility  rules  that  may  lead  to  potential  for 

circumventing them 

 

insufficient quality and up-date of the Land Parcel Identification System 
(LPIS) 

  mistakes in the aid applications 

374 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  continued risks of misinterpretation of what is the eligible area for the 

basic payment scheme  

 

inefficient sanction mechanism for non-compliance or low sanction rate 
for non-compliance 

  need  of  raising  awareness,  targeted  training,  and,  development  and 
delivery  of  detailed  methodological  support  and  guidance  for  national 
and regional authorities and final beneficiaries 

  need of more or better resources and administrative capacity building 

  need  of  an  improved  quality  of  key  aspects  of  the  supervisory  and 
control  systems  (better  design  and/or  performance  of  administrative 
checks  and  on-the-spot  controls  and/or  increase  of  the  effectiveness  of 
the  work  carried  out  by  management  verifications,  audit  authorities, 
paying agencies and certification bodies) 

  better use of the information necessary to detect and correct available in 
the supporting documents, as well as at the level of the beneficiary or a 
national/regional body 

  sufficiently robust action plans developed to address both the causes of 
errors  and  the  weaknesses  in  the  management  and  control  systems 
and/or deficiencies in the EU spending 

 

insufficient  introduction  of  changes  by  new  legal  and/or  regulatory 
and/or procedural frameworks likely to have a significant impact on the 
causes of errors 

  need  of  more  initiatives  for  ensuring  a  genuine  simplification  for 

375 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
beneficiaries and programmes' implementation 

  knowledge and experience sharing, and dissemination of good practices 
improving  widespread 

level  on 

at  national  and/or  at  EU 
weaknesses/deficiencies/errors 

  expected  results  from  actions  that  will  not  always  be  evident  in  short-

term 

Question 1.1.2. 

 

compliance with EU and national eligibility rules, 

lessons 
Main 
while 
learned 
addressing 
the 
risks  and  errors 
for 
EU 
the 
spending. 

According to the Agriculture and Fisheries Financing Institute (IFAP): 

  Need to simplify EU and national eligibility rules; 

  Greater application of simplified costs. 

 

compliance with EU and national public procurement legislation, and 

According to the IFAP: 

  Need to regularly monitor certain measures with the greatest number of beneficiaries under public procurement procedures. 

 

compliance with State aid rules? 

According to the IFAP: 

  This is not an error/ risk factor for Portugal. 

The Development and Cohesion Agency (AD&C) takes the view that: 

Although the levels of error detected in EU expenditure for the 2007-2013 programming period are relatively low for the ERDF, CF and 
ESF, a set of guidelines covering these issues was produced when preparing to select operational programmes for PT 2020. For example, 
the AD&C guidelines on management checks (AD&C Rules, No 2/2015) sent to MAs cover the following topics:  

  Public procurement, 
  Environment, 
  State aid, 

376 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  Financial instruments, 
  Equality and non-discrimination,  
  Revenue-generating projects, 
  Eligibility of operations depending on location, 
  Durability of operations, 
  Choosing simplified costs. 

We  would  also  point  out  that  MAs  have  been  given  a  checklist  for  assessing  compliance  with  national  and  EU  rules  on  public 
procurement, environmental issues, equal opportunities and non-discrimination. 

Furthermore, there is a central system for de minimis aid, which contains information on all the aid allocated in Portugal in accordance 
with Commission Regulation (EU) No 1407/2013 of 18 December 2013.  

In the 2007-2013 programming period, the simplification measures provided for in EU rules were implemented by introducing the unit 
cost scheme for measures supported through the ESF, specifically for combined training courses for young people (professional courses 
and education/ training courses for young people). The scheme focussed on the cost/class/year indicator.  

According  to  the  information  sent  by  the  national  authorities  in  response  to  a  Court  of  Auditors’  questionnaire,  it  was  possible  to 
conclude  that  the  implementation  of  simplified  costs  had  had  a  positive  impact  on  managing  authorities:  (i)  it  improves  management 
efficiency at a time of decreasing project management costs, (ii) it ensures fairer treatment when projects are assessed by the relevant 
bodies,  meaning  that  there  is  less  room  for  subjectivity  when  applying  the  criteria,  (iii)  it  enables  closer  monitoring  of  technical/ 
pedagogical aspects and more focus on the quality-related aspects of the training provided, as opposed to accounting or administrative-
based assessments, and there is a greater emphasis on the results of the action, and (iv) it helps reduce the number of procedures involved 
when evaluating the financial processes used by the various bodies and has led to a lower error rate. 

Question 1.1.3. 

According to the IFAP: 

Good 
practices 
and  examples  of 
success  stories  in 
of 
areas 
the 
compliance  with 
EU  and  national 
eligibility 
rules, 
compliance  with 
EU  and  national 
public 

 

 

compliance with EU and national eligibility rules, 

Improvements to information systems and the quality of checklists for administrative checks. 

  Simplifying and computerising procedures (e.g. computerisation of the contracting procedure and aid payments). 

 

compliance with EU and national public procurement legislation, and 

-  Improvements to checklists, by linking up information on each public procurement procedure.  

377 

 
 
 
 
 
procurement 
legislation, 
and 
compliance  with 
State aid rules. 

 

compliance with State aid rules? 

  Nothing relevant to report.  

The Development and Cohesion Agency (AD&C) takes the view that: 

The  system  for  monitoring  the  accumulation  of  de  minimis  aid  (using  the  central  database  of  de  minimis  aid)  brings  together 
information from the aid granting bodies; the information in question can be accessed at any time, and the aid granted under the de 
minimis rule to companies in Portugal can be checked using the company’s tax registration number. 

As regards simplified costs, we would reiterate the points made in answer to the question above. 

The AD&C would like to point out that the ECA did not detect any quantifiable errors in 2015; this demonstrates that the procedures 
used by the various bodies involved in the management and control process (managing, certification and audit authorities) are effective 
in terms of preventing, detecting and correcting any irregularities that may arise. 

The IFAP would like to state the following: 

  Carrying out of quality checks before the aid contract is entered into and the payment request made, with checks made on measures 

that, given their complexity, present the greatest risk; 

  Roll-out  of  a  system  for  cross-checking  information  and,  for  investment  measures,  possibility  to  define  risk  criteria  relating  to 

beneficiaries and/or suppliers and/or types of work. 

The AD&C would like to point out that the ECA did not detect any quantifiable errors in 2015; this demonstrates that the procedures 
used by the various bodies involved in the management and control process (managing, certification and audit authorities) are effective 
in terms of preventing, detecting and correcting any irregularities that may arise. 

The IFAP would like to state the following: 

  For investment measures, improvements to checklists and quality improvements to on-the-spot visits; 

  For investment measures, new computerised cross-checking of ongoing payments and payments that have already been made; 

  Enhanced cross-checking of geographical information declared in the application for aid and the information collected during on-

378 

Question 1.2.1. 

Further  measures 
the 
enhance 
to 
effectiveness of the 
checks  carried  out 
before 
declaring 
certifying 
or 
expenditure  to  the 
Commission. 

Question 1.2.2. 

Further  measures 
the 
to 
enhance 
effectiveness 
of 
to  detect 
actions 
and  correct  errors 
concerning 
expenditure, which 
previously 
was 
or 
declared 
the 
certified 

to 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Commission. 

the-spot visits. 

Question 1.3.1. 

According to the IFAP: 

Risk  analysis  and 
estimated  level  of 
error  in  the  major 
EU spending areas 
(common 
agricultural 
regional 
policy, 
and  urban  policy, 
employment, 
social  affairs  and 
inclusion). 

  Greater use of simplified costs for measures where these are already used for certain categories of expenditure. 

  Use of simplified costs for new measures in cost reimbursement schemes. 

According to the AD&C: 

MAs have primary responsibility for preventing, detecting and correcting  fraud, but managing, certification and audit authorities, and 
other stakeholders, must work together to ensure that anti-fraud measures are successful. As such, managing authorities were issued with 
implementation guidelines for the anti-fraud strategy developed by the Inspectorate-General for Finance in its capacity as the Anti-Fraud 
Coordination Service (AFCOS). Guidelines were also issued on conducting a fraud risk assessment in accordance with Article 125(4)(c) 
of Regulation (EU) No 1303/2013. 

The aim of these guidelines is to promote a culture of prevention, detection and corrective action, based on a zero-tolerance approach to 
illegal practices and fraudulent behaviour and the application of ethical principles by all managers and staff at the relevant bodies. The 
main features are as follows: 

1. Fraud risk prevention, based on a fraud risk assessment; 

2. A proactive approach to fraud detection; 

3. Implementation of effective and proportionate measures for handling detected or suspected cases of fraud. 

Question 1.3.2. 

Yes  

  The IFAP takes the view that the ECA’s assessment is correct and shares the Commission’s view, as expressed in its reply to point 
1.21 of Chapter 1 of the ECA Report, that the use of simplified costs will help mitigate the complexity of eligibility rules related to 
the basis for reimbursement payments and, consequently, reduce the related levels of error. 

  The AD&C is of the opinion that the risk of error is in direct correlation to the complexity of the information that beneficiaries must 

provide for analysis as part of the process of managing and monitoring funds. 

Relationship 
between  the  basis 
for  payment  and 
levels  of  error  in 
the  major  EU 
spending 
areas 
(common 
agricultural 
policy, 
regional 
and  urban  policy, 
employment, 
social  affairs  and 
inclusion). 

379 

 
 
Question 2.1.1. 

Links  between  EU 
the 
in 
priorities 
context 
the 
of 
Europe 2020 
strategy,  including 
Horizon 2020,  and 
national priorities. 

Question 2.1.2. 

to 
synergies 

Measures 
pursue 
and 
complementarities 
ESI 
between 
and 
Funds 
national 
programmes . 

In  the  Partnership  Agreement,  the  Competitiveness  and  Internationalisation  Operational  Programme  and  the  Regional  Operational 
Programmes  there  is  a  particular  focus  on  the  coordination  and  integration  of  operations  and  financing;  this  is  needed  in  order  to 
maximise  efficiency  gains,  bring  about  synergies  and  leverage  public  resources  by  mobilising  private  financing.  There  is  also  an 
emphasis  on  coordination  between  the  use  of  European Structural  and  Investment  Funds  and  activities  and  funding  under  other  EU 
initiatives, such as the Horizon 2020 Programme. 
In  this  respect,  Portugal  2020  provides  strategic  support  for  production-related  aid  and  the  transfer  of  scientific  and  technological 
knowledge to the business sector; this should help bolster research and innovation at companies that are part of national and regional 
R&I  schemes,  making  them  more  results-oriented,  increasing  their  global  reach  and  including  them  in  knowledge  and  innovation 
networks, both in Europe and internationally, with the ultimate aim of increasing competitiveness and national added value.  
As regards Horizon 2020, and specifically in relation to R&I policy, coordination is particularly important and this joined-up approach is 
evident in the following areas: 
1.  Encouraging  national  bodies,  particularly  SMEs,  to  take  part  in  Horizon  2020;  this  involves  awareness-raising  and  information 
activities and capacity-building for bodies that are part of the R&I Scheme.  It also includes help with the application process; 
2.  Encouraging  national  bodies  to  join  international  knowledge  platforms  and  networks,  promoting  Portugal’s  active  involvement  in 
decision-making  forums  and  forums  for  setting  technical  and  technological  standards,  as  well  as  knowledge  transfer  and  knowledge 
sharing; 
3. Supporting the application of the knowledge generated by R&D projects receiving support through Horizon 2020, particularly for the 
priorities  identified  in  the  R&I  Strategy  for  Smart  Specialisation  (national  and  regional  strategies),  thereby  helping  to  ensure  that  the 
R&D is brought to the market. 
Support in this area is set out in Section III ‘Incentive Schemes for Technological Research and Development’ of the Specific Regulation 
on Competitiveness and Internationalisation (Implementing Order No 57-A/2015 of 27 February 2015, current version). As referred to in 
Part IV of the same Implementing Order, there are plans to provide support for applicants for EU-financed R&D programmes through 
the Support Scheme for Scientific and Technological Research. 
In  the  Partnership  Agreement,  the  Competitiveness  and  Internationalisation  Operational  Programme  and  the  Regional  Operational 
Programmes  there  is  a  particular  focus  on  the  coordination  and  integration  of  operations  and  financing;  this  is  needed  in  order  to 
maximise  efficiency  gains,  bring  about  synergies  and  leverage  public  resources  by  mobilising  private  financing.  There  is  also  an 
emphasis  on  coordination  between  the  use  of  European Structural  and  Investment  Funds  and  activities  and  funding  under  other  EU 
initiatives, such as the Horizon 2020 Programme. 
In  this  respect,  Portugal  2020  provides  strategic  support  for  production-related  aid  and  the  transfer  of  scientific  and  technological 
knowledge to the business sector; this should help bolster research and innovation at companies that are part of national and regional 
R&I  schemes,  making  them  more  results-oriented,  increasing  their  global  reach  and  including  them  in  knowledge  and  innovation 
networks, both in Europe and internationally, with the ultimate aim of increasing competitiveness and national added value.  

380 

 
 
As regards Horizon 2020, and specifically in relation to R&I policy, coordination is particularly important and this joined-up approach is 
evident in the following areas: 
1.  Encouraging  national  bodies,  particularly  SMEs,  to  take  part  in  Horizon  2020;  this  involves  awareness-raising  and  information 
activities and capacity-building for bodies that are part of the R&I Scheme.  It also includes help with the application process; 
2.  Encouraging  national  bodies  to  join  international  knowledge  platforms  and  networks,  promoting  Portugal’s  active  involvement  in 
decision-making  forums  and  forums  for  setting  technical  and  technological  standards,  as  well  as  knowledge  transfer  and  knowledge 
sharing; 
3. Supporting the application of the knowledge generated by R&D projects receiving support through Horizon 2020, particularly for the 
priorities  identified  in  the  R&I  Strategy  for  Smart  Specialisation  (national  and  regional  strategies),  thereby  helping  to  ensure  that  the 
R&D is brought to the market. 
Support in this area is set out in Section III ‘Incentive Schemes for Technological Research and Development’ of the Specific Regulation 
on Competitiveness and Internationalisation (Implementing Order No 57-A/2015 of 27 February 2015, current version). As referred to in 
Part IV of the same Implementing Order, there are plans to provide support for applicants for EU-financed R&D programmes through 
the Support Scheme for Scientific and Technological Research. 
  The IFAP has improved the collection of implementation indicators for investment measures when the last payment request is sent. 
  The Development and Cohesion Agency (AD&C) wishes to point out that:  

In the case of Portugal, this link is established in the text of the agreement, specifically in point 1.3.1, which is partially reproduced 
below: 
The Partnership Agreement set out the programming of EU funding for the 2014-2020 period, with the aim of taking action in critical 
areas  where  implementation  will  create  closer  links  between  the  Europe  2020  objectives  and  the  national  targets  laid  down  in  the 
National Reform Programme, within the framework of the restrictions related to the ongoing process of correcting macroeconomic 
imbalances (see Table 1). 
These objectives are naturally interlinked, as are their outcomes. Enhancing skills, in line with labour-market skills shortages, will 
help increase employability, boost  businesses’ competitiveness  and reduce poverty and social exclusion. Increasing R&D  capacity 
and innovation across all sectors of the economy, particularly bearing in mind the RIS3 priorities, in combination with more efficient 
use of resources, will improve competitiveness and promote job creation, while reducing poverty and social exclusion. Investing in 
cleaner, low-carbon technologies will benefit the environment, help fight climate change and create new business and employment 
opportunities. 
In the 2014-2020 programming period, the use of European Structural and Investment Funds is organised in such a way as to focus 
on  the  following  thematic  areas  -  Competitiveness  and  Internationalisation;  Social  Inclusion  and  Employment;  Human  Capital; 
Sustainability and Efficient Use of Resources - and two cross-cutting areas - Reform of the Public Administration and Region-based 
Policies. These four thematic areas are the main areas in which structural constraints exist and, as such, these are the priority areas for 

381 

Question 2.2.1. 

Performance 
measurement 
system  to  link  EU 
measures, 
operations 
projects 
priorities/Europe 
2020 
and targets. 

or 
to  EU 

objectives 

 
 
funding, as shown in the following table. 

s
a
e
r
a

c
i
t
a
m
e
h
T

  Competitiveness and 

Internationalisation 

Social Inclusion and 
Employment 

Region-based approach 

Reform of the Public Administration 

Cross-cutting areas 

Main thematic objectives (TO): 
TO 1: Strengthening research, technological development and innovation 
TO 2: Enhancing access to, and use and quality of, ICT 
TO 3: Enhancing the competitiveness of SMEs 
TO 7: Promoting sustainable transport and removing bottlenecks in key network infrastructures 
TO 11: Enhancing institutional capacity of public authorities and stakeholders and efficient public 
administration 
Main thematic objectives (TO): 
TO 8: Promoting sustainable and quality employment and supporting labour mobility 
TO 9: Promoting social inclusion, combating poverty and any discrimination 

382 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Human Capital 

Sustainability and 
Efficient Use of 
Resources 

Main thematic objectives (TO): 
TO 10: Investing in education, training and vocational training for skills and lifelong learning 
Main thematic objectives (TO): 
TO 4: Supporting the shift towards a low-carbon economy in all sectors 
TO 5: Promoting climate change adaptation, risk prevention and management 
TO 6: Preserving and protecting the environment and promoting resource efficiency 

Table 1 – Thematic structure of Portugal 2020 

ESIF funding is organised into four thematic areas, as referred to above, and it is important to emphasise their  contribution to the three 
strategic growth priorities in the Europe 2020 Strategy.  
For  example,  the  ‘Competitiveness  and  Internationalisation’  thematic  area  makes  a  major  contribution  to  the  EU’s  ‘smart  growth’ 
priority for 2020 and to the development of a knowledge- and innovation-based economy, given its strategic aim to significantly increase 
economic competitiveness, step up the use of technology and enhance knowledge in a number of sectors and across the economy as a 
whole  (particularly  bearing  in  mind  the  RIS3  priorities),  as  well  as  its  aim  to  increase  the  relative  proportion  of  production  activities 
geared  towards  goods  and  services  that  can  be  traded  internationally  and  to  make  Portuguese  businesses  more  export-oriented. 
Bolstering  R&D  investment  in  smart  specialisation  areas  (with  a  view  to  reaching  2.7  %  to  3  %  of  GDP  by  2020)  and  greater 
effectiveness  and  efficiency  in  national  and  regional  R&I  schemes,  including  in  terms  of  their  internationalisation,  while  increasing 
efforts focused on demonstration activities and the transfer of R&D results to the business sector, will create a solid basis for ensuring 
the success of innovation processes. 
The ‘Competitiveness and Internationalisation’ area also contributes to ‘sustainable growth’,  meaning  that it helps create an economy 
that  is  more  resource-efficient,  greener  and  more  competitive.  This  is  because  the  support  given  to  business  investment  prioritises 
sustainability and the efficient use of resources, as well as efforts to boost the development of new technological solutions and processes 
designed to cut polluting emissions, reduce energy intensity and produce clean and efficient energy. 
Its contribution to ‘inclusive growth’ is also relevant given its impact on growth (including in the area of qualified entrepreneurship), 
encouraging  higher  levels  of  employment  (in  quality  and  numerical  terms)  that  in  turn  can  ensure  economic,  social  and  territorial 
cohesion. 

The thematic area of social inclusion and employment makes a major contribution to the EU 2020 priority relating to ‘inclusive growth’ 
(increase the employment rate for people aged 20-64 to at least 75 %, and reduce the number of Europeans living below the poverty line 
by 25 %, taking 20 million people out of poverty), in the sense that the strategic objectives in this area are linked to job creation and the 
fight  against poverty  and  social  exclusion.  Given  the  additional  difficulties  caused  by  the  economic  and  financial  crisis,  demographic 

383 

 
 
 
 
 
pressures,  which  are  reducing  the  size  of  the  workforce  (due  to  a  lower  birth  rate  and  an  aging  population),  and  the  structure  of  the 
labour market, which does not encourage women and older people to work or help young people start work, it is imperative to put the 
right  conditions  in  place  to  increase  sustainable  employment.    The  fight  against  poverty  and  social  exclusion  sets  out  to  encourage 
cohesion and social inclusion by implementing strategies to ensure that all citizens, and particularly those who are most vulnerable, can 
enter the labour market, earn an income and access social protection and healthcare services.  
The  priority  relating  to  ‘smart  growth’  also  makes  a  significant  contribution  to  social  inclusion  and  employment,  as  the  aim  of  this 
priority is to boost people’s skills in two ways: firstly, by promoting the development of the skills and competences that the economy 
and European society needs, and, crucially, by ensuring that these skills and competences are in line with the needs and expectations of 
the various stakeholders; secondly, by enhancing these skills and competences through effective life-long learning.  
The social inclusion thematic area contributes indirectly to the ‘sustainable growth’ priority, insofar as it relates, essentially, to support 
for  efficient  energy  use  (including  in  integrated  projects  or  support  for  renewable  energy  for  own  use)  in  public  infrastructure, 
particularly in public buildings, mainly through investment in social and health infrastructure, and in the social housing sector. 
Human Capital makes a particularly significant  contribution to the  ‘smart growth’ priority, in the  sense that a long-term development 
strategy  must  be  based  on  investment  in  education  (in  school  or  professional/  technical  education)  or  on  Research,  Development  and 
Innovation (R&D&I). By enhancing the quality of advanced training in line with the needs of the labour market, this contribution will be 
an  essential  means  of  improving  human  capital,  and,  as  such,  it  will  also  increase  Portuguese  businesses’  productivity,  capacity  to 
innovate and global reach. Training for employees, business owners and managers, which comes within the area of Competitiveness and 
Internationalisation,  will  also  help  ensure  that  there  is  a  greater  emphasis  on  productivity,  competitiveness  and  skills  in  business 
strategies.  

Human Capital also makes a contribution to the ‘Inclusive Growth’ priority, particularly as regards improving employability by ensuring 
that training for adults and young people matches the requirements of the labour market. Strategies to prevent and reduce early school-
leaving have a key role to play in terms of lowering the risk of exclusion and breaking the poverty cycle. At operational level, in the area 
of Social Inclusion and Employment, there is a focus on training for unemployed people and other at-risk groups, while Human Capital 
focuses on education and training leading to a school-leaving certificate or vocational qualification, both with a view to improving the 
employability of the people who have received training. 
It also makes a crucial contribution to ‘sustainable growth’ bearing in mind that many of the new jobs linked to the green economy will 
require  more advanced qualifications than those currently needed; this  means that  employees will  need  to  be  more highly skilled and 
specialised, which in turn requires investment in training and professional skills. In the light of the above, it will be possible to create 
projects and programmes designed to boost human capital in view of the challenges posed by green growth. 
The  Sustainability  and  Efficient  Use  of  Resources  area  makes  a  key  contribution  to  the  ‘sustainable  growth’  priority  in  the  EU  2020 
strategy  insofar  as  the  aim  is  to  tackle  the  challenges  posed  by  the  shift  to  a  low-carbon  economy  and  energy  diversification  and 

384 

 
 
 
efficiency, based on a more efficient use of resources. As such, Portugal 2020 has a key role to play in terms of ensuring that Portugal 
can deliver on its international commitments in this area, specifically as regards cutting primary energy consumption by 20 % by 2020 
and limiting the rise in greenhouse gas emissions outside the European emissions trading scheme to 1 % compared to 2005 levels. 
A dynamic approach that creates links between sustainability and growth will also contribute to the ‘smart growth’ priority in the EU 
2020  strategy,  by  reducing  consumption  and  costs  related  to  business  operations  (energy  efficiency),  transport  and  the  public  sector 
(energy efficiency), thereby freeing up resources to boost domestic demand and new investment. 
Lastly, this area will make an indirect contribution to the ‘inclusive growth’ priority, as new opportunities created by the growth of the 
green economy will create jobs. 

Table 1 – Contribution of the thematic areas to the priorities of the Europe 2020 Strategy 

Thematic area 

Strategic objectives 

Smart 
growth 

Sustainable 
growth 

Inclusive 
growth 

Competitiveness 
and 
Internationalisation 

Social Inclusion 
and Employment 

  Step up the use of technology and enhance knowledge 
in a number of sectors and across the economy as a 
whole; 
Increase the relative proportion of production 
activities geared towards goods and services that can 
be traded internationally and make Portuguese 
businesses more export-oriented; 

 

  Build SMEs' capacity to pursue more advanced 

 

business strategies; 
Improve conditions for transporting goods in and out 
of Portugal, reducing businesses' costs and lead times; 

  Enhance the capacity, efficiency and integration of 

public services, cutting red tape. 

 

Improve employability conditions for the unemployed 
and boost job creation for vulnerable groups; 
  Strengthen employment-related supply and demand 

adjustment mechanisms, and match active 
employment policies to the needs of different regions 
and different target groups; 

  Encourage net creation of sustainable/ long-term 
employment and boost part-time employment; 

385 

+++ 

++ 

++ 

++ 

[illegible] 

+++ 

 
 
 
 
  Step up efforts to combat discrimination, including 
wage discrimination, based on gender, sexual 
orientation, ethnicity or race, religious or other beliefs, 
disability or age, and promote better work-life 
balance; 
Improve access to training for less-qualified workers 
and particularly those who are working for micro or 
small enterprises; 
Improve the responsiveness of the public employment 
service and its support structures; 

 

 

  Combat exclusion, child poverty and poverty among 
older people by improving access to high-quality 
services for children and the elderly; 
Improve the reach and quality of support services in 
the area of social inclusion, guaranteeing the right 
level of support focussing on existing solutions and 
building capacity to respond to future needs; 

 

The IFAP has taken steps to improve the collection of implementation indicators for investment measures when the last payment request 
is sent. 

Question 2.2.2. 

Framework for the 
of 
management 
ESI 
in 
Funds 
order  to  achieve  a 
result-oriented 
system  and  impact 
of EU projects. 

Question 2.2.3. 

Member 
State 
actions  to  define 
or  improve  result 
indicators  at  EU 
project level. 

386 

 
 
 
 
 
Question 2.2.4. 

The improvements that the IFAP has made are applied to all operations. 

Performance 
measurement 
system  to  monitor 
the 
achievement 
objectives  at  EU 
measure, 
operations 
or 
project  level  and 
the 
to  monitor 
output  and  result 
indicators  at  EU 
measure, 
operations 
project level. 

or 

Question 3.1.1. 

Yes. 

An information system is currently being developed. It will contain all the information on fund-related checks/audits and the outcome of 
those checks and audits. This system will be used to follow up on any recommendations made and to correct any detected errors. 

Until the system goes into production, a fall-back system is being used whereby information is collected using Excel spreadsheets, and 
evidence is requested whenever necessary. 

for 

Framework  or  a 
system 
the 
follow-up of ECA's 
recommendations 
addressed 
to 
Member  States  in 
annual 
Court's 
special 
and 
reports. 
and 
Monitoring 
reporting 
on 
progress  achieved 
towards 
to 
implementation  of 
Court's 
recommendations 

387 

 
 
 
 
Romania 

Question 1.1.1 

COMMON AGRICULTURAL POLICY 

Main  root  causes 
in  the  major  EU 
areas 
spending 
(common 
agricultural 
policy, 
regional 
and  urban  policy, 
employment, 
social  affairs  and 
inclusion)  for  the 
persisting 
risks 
and errors pointed 
out by the ECA. 

NB:  In  order  to  develop  the  replies,  the  following  non-
exhaustive  list  of  examples  for  root  causes  of  legality  and 
regularity errors in EU expenditure may be considered 

Not 
relevant 

Relevant in some 
respect 

Relevant in 
most respect 

Fully 
relevant 

  number and complexity of rules and gold-plating 

AA 

APIA, 
AMPNDR, 
AFIR 

 

incorrect transposition of applicable EU legislation 
into national laws 

APIA 

AA, AMPNDR, 

AFIR 

 

to  observe 

failure 
legal  and  procedural 
requirements  stemming  from  EU  and  national 
legislation and rules 

the 

  sufficient knowledge in applying procurement rules 
or State aid rules or other applicable EU legislation 
and  rules  (including  conditions  and  eligibility 
criteria 
the  rural  development  measures, 
simplified  cost  options,  reasonableness  of  costs, 
result-oriented agri-environment payments) 

for 

 AA, APIA, 

AMPNDR, AFIR 

 AA, APIA, 

AMPNDR, AFIR 

  complex eligibility rule 

 AA, 

APIA 

  weaknesses  in  the  set  of  eligibility  rules  that  may 

lead to potential for circumventing them 

AA,AMPNDR,AFIR 

 

insufficient  quality  and  up-date  of  the Land  Parcel 

 AA,APIA 

AMPNDR,AFIR 

APIA 

388 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Identification System (LPIS) 

  mistakes in the aid applications 

 AA,APIA 

  continued  risks  of  misinterpretation  of  what  is  the 

 AA 

APIA 

eligible area for the basic payment scheme  

 

inefficient  sanction  mechanism  for  non-compliance 
or low sanction rate for non-compliance 

 AA, 

AMPNDR 

APIA 

  need  of  raising  awareness,  targeted  training,  and, 
development 
detailed 
methodological  support  and  guidance  for  national 
and regional authorities and final beneficiaries 

delivery 

and 

of 

  need of more or better resources and administrative 

capacity building 

  need  of  an  improved  quality  of  key  aspects  of  the 
supervisory  and  control  systems  (better  design 
and/or  performance  of  administrative  checks  and 
the 
on-the-spot  controls  and/or 
effectiveness  of 
the  work  carried  out  by 
management verifications, audit authorities, paying 
agencies and certification bodies) 

increase  of 

  better  use  of  the  information  necessary  to  detect 
and correct available in the supporting documents, 
as  well  as  at  the  level  of  the  beneficiary  or  a 
national/regional body 

389 

 AA, AMPNDR 

APIA 

AFIR 

 AA, AMPNDR, 

AFIR 

 AA, APIA, AFIR 

APIA 

 AA,APIA,AFIR 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  sufficiently  robust  action  plans  developed 
the  causes  of  errors  and 

to 
the 
address  both 
weaknesses in the management and control systems 
and/or deficiencies in the EU spending 

 

insufficient  introduction  of  changes  by  new  legal 
and/or  regulatory  and/or  procedural  frameworks 
likely to have a significant impact on the causes of 
errors 

  need  of  more  initiatives  for  ensuring  a  genuine 
simplification  for  beneficiaries  and  programmes' 
implementation 

  knowledge 

and 

and 
experience 
dissemination  of  good  practices  at  national  and/or 
at  EU 
improving  widespread 
level 
weaknesses/deficiencies/errors 

sharing, 

on 

 AA,APIA,AFIR 

 AA 

APIA 

AFIR 

 AA, AMPNDR, 

AFIR 

 AA, AMPNDR, 

AFIR 

APIA 

APIA 

  expected  results  from  actions  that  will  not  always 

be evident in short-term 

 AA,  APIA, 

AMPNDR, AFIR 

EMPLOYMENT, SOCIAL AFFAIRS AND INCLUSION 

NB: In order to develop the replies, the following non-exhaustive list of examples for 
root causes of legality and regularity errors in EU expenditure may be considered 

Not 
relevant 

Relevant 
in some 
respect 

Relevant 
in most 
respect 

Fully 
relevant 

  number and complexity of rules and gold-plating 

 AA 

 

incorrect transposition of applicable EU legislation into national laws 

 

failure to observe the legal and procedural requirements stemming from 
EU and national legislation and rules 

 AA 

 AA 

390 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  sufficient knowledge in applying procurement rules or State aid rules or 
other  applicable  EU  legislation  and  rules  (including  conditions  and 
eligibility  criteria  for  the  rural  development  measures,  simplified  cost 
options,  reasonableness  of  costs,  result-oriented  agri-environment 
payments) 

  complex eligibility rule 

 AA 

 AA 

  weaknesses  in  the  set  of  eligibility  rules  that  may  lead  to  potential  for 

AA 

circumventing them 

 

insufficient quality and up-date of the Land Parcel Identification System 
(LPIS) - not applicable 

  mistakes in the aid applications- not applicable 

  continued risks of misinterpretation of what is the eligible area for the 

basic payment scheme - not applicable 

 

inefficient sanction mechanism for non-compliance or low sanction rate 
for non-compliance 

 AA 

  need  of  raising  awareness,  targeted  training,  and,  development  and 
delivery  of  detailed  methodological  support  and  guidance  for  national 
and regional authorities and final beneficiaries 

  need of more or better resources and administrative capacity building 

  need  of  an  improved  quality  of  key  aspects  of  the  supervisory  and 
control  systems  (better  design  and/or  performance  of  administrative 

AA 

 AA 

 AA 

391 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
checks  and  on-the-spot  controls  and/or  increase  of  the  effectiveness  of 
the  work  carried  out  by  management  verifications,  audit  authorities, 
paying agencies and certification bodies) 

  better use of the information necessary to detect and correct available in 
the supporting documents, as well as at the level of the beneficiary or a 
national/regional body 

 AA 

  sufficiently robust action plans developed to address both the causes of 
errors  and  the  weaknesses  in  the  management  and  control  systems 
and/or deficiencies in the EU spending 

 

insufficient  introduction  of  changes  by  new  legal  and/or  regulatory 
and/or procedural frameworks likely to have a significant impact on the 
causes of errors 

  need  of  more  initiatives  for  ensuring  a  genuine  simplification  for 

beneficiaries and programmes' implementation 

  knowledge and experience sharing, and dissemination of good practices 
improving  widespread 

level  on 

at  national  and/or  at  EU 
weaknesses/deficiencies/errors 

  expected  results  from  actions  that  will  not  always  be  evident  in  short-

term 

 AA 

 AA 

 AA 

 AA 

 AA 

REGIONAL AND URBAN POLICY 

NB: In order to develop the replies, the following non-exhaustive list of examples for 
root causes of legality and regularity errors in EU expenditure may be considered 

Not 
relevant 

Relevant 
in some 
respect 

Relevant 
in most 
respect 

Fully 
relevant 

  number and complexity of rules and gold-plating 

 AA 

392 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

incorrect transposition of applicable EU legislation into national laws 

 AA 

 

failure to observe the legal and procedural requirements stemming from 
EU and national legislation and rules 

  sufficient knowledge in applying procurement rules or State aid rules or 
other  applicable  EU  legislation  and  rules  (including  conditions  and 
eligibility  criteria  for  the  rural  development  measures,  simplified  cost 
options,  reasonableness  of  costs,  result-oriented  agri-environment 
payments) 

  complex eligibility rule 

 AA 

 AA 

 AA 

  weaknesses  in  the  set  of  eligibility  rules  that  may  lead  to  potential  for 

 AA 

circumventing them 

 

insufficient quality and up-date of the Land Parcel Identification System 
(LPIS) - not applicable 

  mistakes in the aid applications- not applicable 

  continued risks of misinterpretation of what is the eligible area for the 

basic payment scheme - not applicable 

 

inefficient sanction mechanism for non-compliance or low sanction rate 
for non-compliance 

 AA 

  need  of  raising  awareness,  targeted  training,  and,  development  and 
delivery  of  detailed  methodological  support  and  guidance  for  national 
and regional authorities and final beneficiaries 

 AA 

393 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  need of more or better resources and administrative capacity building 

  need  of  an  improved  quality  of  key  aspects  of  the  supervisory  and 
control  systems  (better  design  and/or  performance  of  administrative 
checks  and  on-the-spot  controls  and/or  increase  of  the  effectiveness  of 
the  work  carried  out  by  management  verifications,  audit  authorities, 
paying agencies and certification bodies) 

  better use of the information necessary to detect and correct available in 
the supporting documents, as well as at the level of the beneficiary or a 
national/regional body 

 AA 

  sufficiently robust action plans developed to address both the causes of 
errors  and  the  weaknesses  in  the  management  and  control  systems 
and/or deficiencies in the EU spending 

 

insufficient  introduction  of  changes  by  new  legal  and/or  regulatory 
and/or procedural frameworks likely to have a significant impact on the 
causes of errors 

 AA 

  need  of  more  initiatives  for  ensuring  a  genuine  simplification  for 

beneficiaries and programmes' implementation 

  knowledge and experience sharing, and dissemination of good practices 
improving  widespread 

level  on 

at  national  and/or  at  EU 
weaknesses/deficiencies/errors 

  expected  results  from  actions  that  will  not  always  be  evident  in  short-

term 

394 

 AA 

 AA 

 AA 

 AA 

 AA 

 AA 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
NB: In order to develop the replies, the following non-exhaustive list of examples for 
root causes of legality and regularity errors in EU expenditure may be considered 

Not 
relevant 

Relevant 
in some 
respect 

Relevant 
in most 
respect 

Fully 
relevant 

  number and complexity of rules and gold-plating 

 

incorrect transposition of applicable EU legislation into national laws 

 MFE 

 MFE 

 

failure to observe the legal and procedural requirements stemming from 
EU and national legislation and rules 

 MFE 

  sufficient knowledge in applying procurement rules or State aid rules or 
other  applicable  EU  legislation  and  rules  (including  conditions  and 
eligibility  criteria  for  the  rural  development  measures,  simplified  cost 
options,  reasonableness  of  costs,  result-oriented  agri-environment 
payments) 

  complex eligibility rule 

 MFE 

  MFE 

  weaknesses  in  the  set  of  eligibility  rules  that  may  lead  to  potential  for 

  MFE 

circumventing them 

 

insufficient quality and up-date of the Land Parcel Identification System 
(LPIS) 

  mistakes in the aid applications 

  continued risks of misinterpretation of what is the eligible area for the 

basic payment scheme  

 

inefficient sanction mechanism for non-compliance or low sanction rate 
for non-compliance 

 MFE 

 MFE 

395 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  need  of  raising  awareness,  targeted  training,  and,  development  and 
delivery  of  detailed  methodological  support  and  guidance  for  national 
and regional authorities and final beneficiaries 

  need of more or better resources and administrative capacity building 

  need  of  an  improved  quality  of  key  aspects  of  the  supervisory  and 
control  systems  (better  design  and/or  performance  of  administrative 
checks  and  on-the-spot  controls  and/or  increase  of  the  effectiveness  of 
the  work  carried  out  by  management  verifications,  audit  authorities, 
paying agencies and certification bodies) 

  better use of the information necessary to detect and correct available in 
the supporting documents, as well as at the level of the beneficiary or a 
national/regional body 

  sufficiently robust action plans developed to address both the causes of 
errors  and  the  weaknesses  in  the  management  and  control  systems 
and/or deficiencies in the EU spending 

 

insufficient  introduction  of  changes  by  new  legal  and/or  regulatory 
and/or procedural frameworks likely to have a significant impact on the 
causes of errors 

MFE 

  need  of  more  initiatives  for  ensuring  a  genuine  simplification  for 

beneficiaries and programmes' implementation 

  knowledge and experience sharing, and dissemination of good practices 
improving  widespread 

level  on 

at  national  and/or  at  EU 
weaknesses/deficiencies/errors 

 MFE 

 MFE 

 MFE 

  MFE 

 MFE 

 MFE 

 MFE 

  expected  results  from  actions  that  will  not  always  be  evident  in  short-

 MFE 

term 

MFE: Given the lessons learned from the implementation of SOP HRD, MFE, as national coordinator of ESIF, elaborated national rules 

396 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
regarding  the eligibility of expenditure (DECISION No  399/27 May 2015 regarding  the  rules for eligibility of expenditure within  the 
operations  financed  through  the  European  Regional  Development  Fund,  European  Social  Fund  and  Cohesion  Fund  2014-2020),  also 
taking  into  account  the  sensitive  issues  of  SOP  HRD  management  and  control  system,  deficiencies  that  have  led  to  interruptions  of 
payments.  
AFIR: We attach the Action plan for the reduction of the error rate (the 5th follow-up) describing the actions taken by AFIR in relation 
to public procurement and eligibility conditions. 

Question 1.1.2. 

lessons 
Main 
while 
learned 
addressing 
the 
risks  and  errors 
for 
EU 
the 
spending. 

AMPNDR:  The  main  lessons  learned  while  addressing  risks  and  errors  for  the  EU  spending,  with  emphasis  on  the  ones  mentioned 
above, are related to the reduction of the number of documents requested in order to determine project eligibility and to simplify public 
procurement procedures.   

ACP: The procedure for further checks for certification by the ACP applicable in the period 2014-2020, deals with thematic objectives 
depending on the risks detected in the management and control system in the period 2007-2013, focusing on public procurement, State 
aid  and  assessment/selection.  The  above-mentioned  checks,  pursuant  to  the  procedure  applicable  in  the  period  2014-2020,  will  be 
carried out on the basis of separate checklists for thematic objectives. 

AA:  In  relation  to  the  compliance  with  EU  and  national  eligibility  rules,  certain  cases  require  the  strengthening  of  first-level 

 
controls in order to diminish the risk of reimbursement of expenditure that does not fully comply with the eligibility conditions; 

 
AA: In relation to the compliance with EU and national public procurement legislation, better beneficiary information is needed 
in terms of application of public procurement procedures and rules, the strengthening of ex-ante controls and, in certain cases, of first-
level controls. 

the awareness in terms of the verifications of artificial conditions - AFIR 

the need for a national and European database - AFIR 

 

 

MFE:  

 

the detailed analysis of beneficiary eligibility and the use of the Competition Council’s platform and ARACHNE application; 

 
the  harmonisation  of  national  legislation  pursuant  to  the  new  EU  directives,  correlation  of  responsibilities  of  the  institutions 
involved  in  the  verification/control  of  public  procurement  procedures  –  setting-up  of  ANAP  (National  Public  Procurement  Agency), 
signing of interinstitutional protocol; 

 

 

 

the use of REGAS platform 

the need to strengthen the administrative capacity of the managing authority; 

the simplification of implementation procedures;  

397 

 
 
 
the  development  of  simplified  cost  options,  thus  directing  efforts  to  the  impact  monitoring  component  and  simplifying 

 
bureaucratic effort; 

 
the  development  of  a  single  information  management  system  allowing  the  exchange  of  data  between  the  managing  authority, 
beneficiaries,  certifying  and  paying  authority  and  auditing  entities,  as  well  as  data  storage  in  structured  form  in  order  to  ensure  the 
traceability of documents for each operation.  

Question 1.1.3. 

Good 
practices 
and  examples  of 
success  stories  in 
the 
of 
areas 
compliance  with 
EU  and  national 
eligibility 
rules, 
compliance  with 
EU  and  national 
public 
procurement 
legislation, 
and 
compliance  with 
State aid rules. 

AMPNDR: the gradual introduction of the option of online submission of projects in order to reduce the necessary time and costs related 
to the submission of projects, the reduction of the number of documents requested upon the submission of projects, a series of documents 
being requested upon contracting 

 

 

 

the use and extension of simplified costs - AFIR 

the use of standard documents - AFIR 

the establishment of RegAs database – AFIR 

APIA: At the level of the Paying and Intervention Agency for Agriculture, the electronic filling-out of the Single Payment Application 
has been implemented through IPA ONLINE 

 IPA Online is a free software allowing the electronic filling-out of the Area Statement within the support application for the Single Area 
Payment Scheme. The application may be used wherever there is a computer with Internet connection: at home, at the office of the farm, 
at town hall, at APIA centre. IPAOnline provides the list of plots for which support was requested in the previous year, with the areas 
determined further to the controls carried out by the Agency’s specialists, as well as the layout of agricultural plots. For  each plot, one 
may modify, correct or supplement the Area Statement and layout of the plot. The programme verifies the entered data and, if  they are 
not complete or if there is obvious information asymmetry, it will display a warning, thus helping the applicant to correctly fill out the 
Statement, which is automatically introduced in the Integrated Administration and Control System, used by APIA to check the Support 
Application. The application contains a Presentation Manual and video tutorials.  

Through the implementation of this software, the risk of submitting an incorrect area statement is much lower and so is the risk of being 
sanctioned for this reason. It also reduces the time needed to fill out the application at the office.  

The use of this computerised solution determines the reduction of paper consumption for environment protection. The reduced support 

398 

 
 
 
 
application does not need to be filled out on paper.  

 AMPNDR: At national level, Government Emergency Order No 41 of 28 June 2016 establishing certain measures for the simplification 
of the central government and amending and supplementing certain legislative acts. 

In order to reduce administrative burden, to improve the efficiency of the financial management of operations, to provide a quicker and 
better response to the needs of target groups/territories, RO chose to introduce simplified costs. Simplified costs cover expenditure for 
sM 6.1, 6.2, 6.3, 6.5, M 2, M 9, M 10, M 11, M 13, M 15 and sM 4.1 for table grape plantations, only for costs related to the setting-
up/replacement  of  plantations,  sM  4.1a  for  the  fruit  tree  sub-programme,  only  for  costs  related  to  the  reconversion  and  setting-up  of 
plantations and sM 8.1 for afforestation, only for the costs related to works for the setting-up of plantations. We intend to apply it to 
other measures as well.  

At  national  level,  Government  Emergency  Order  No  41  of  28  June  2016  establishing  certain  measures  for  the  simplification  of  the 
central government and amending and supplementing certain legislative acts. 

MFE: 

An example of good eligibility practices is the use of the Competition Council’s platform and ARACHNE application. 

The  implementation  of  the  payment  application  mechanism  may  be  considered  another  example  in  this  respect.  Through  the 
implementation  of  this  mechanism,  the  managing  authority  checks  ex-ante  the  eligibility  of  expenditure/  compliance  of  procurement, 
with the possibility of correcting potential errors that could prejudice the national and EU budget, given that the payment application is a 
justified and documented advance. 

ACP:  During  the  on-the-spot  check  missions  carried  out  by  ACP,  additional  specific  objectives  are  established  in  relation  to  the 
management of systemic risks identified in the reports of the European Commission/ ECA. Depending on the risks detected within the 
operational programmes, experts were also hired to support the checks carried out for the certification of the expenditure by ACP, in the 
following fields: procurement, audit, assessment/selection of projects and FIDIC.  

AFIR: The expenditure is not declared if there are suspicions and the project is submitted to the control bodies. 

MFE: 

  Training of the staff and beneficiaries, instructions, close monitoring, regular meetings with the beneficiaries for the analysis of 

project implementation status;  

  Conducting a considerable number of cross-checks for beneficiaries of multiple projects; 

  The managing authority reperforms the checks carried out at the level of intermediate bodies; 

  Detailing the expenditure affected by the irregularity further to the controls, as document attached to the issued debt instrument.    

399 

Question 1.2.1. 

Further  measures 
to 
the 
enhance 
effectiveness of the 
checks  carried  out 
declaring 
before 
or 
certifying 
expenditure  to  the 
Commission. 

 
 
 
Question 1.2.2. 

AFIR: Procedural changes and extension of the recheck sample at central level. 

MFE: 

  Comprehensive checklists, simple, clear and applicable working procedures, close monitoring.  

  Given the need to consolidate the capacity for prevention and early detection of expenditure-related risks, SOP HRD managing 
authority has developed an instrument, IT-ROMAFIS, which is able to generate alerts regarding the multiple funding risk, errors 
related to salary costs, and the risk of fraud associated with public procurement procedures. This system has been used in the 
process  of  verification  of  reimbursement  applications  starting  with  the  end  of  2015,  providing  clues  that  are  subsequently 
verified  with  the  supporting  documents,  in  order  to  obtain  a  reasonable  assurance  regarding  the  expenditure  requested  for 
reimbursement.  

MFE:  Given  the  most  significant  flat-rate  correction  of  25%  applied  to  salary  costs  settled  under  SOP  HRD,  SOP  HRD  managing 
authority diminished the salary threshold for the positions settled under the projects, as also provided in the general guidelines for the 
Operational Programme Human Capital. 

Further  measures 
the 
to 
enhance 
of 
effectiveness 
actions 
to  detect 
and  correct  errors 
concerning 
expenditure, which 
previously 
was 
or 
declared 
certified 
the 
to 
Commission. 

Question 1.3.1. 

Risk  analysis  and 
estimated  level  of 
error  in  the  major 
EU spending areas 
(common 
agricultural 
regional 
policy, 
and  urban  policy, 
employment, 
social  affairs  and 
inclusion). 

Question 1.3.2. 

Yes.  

Relationship 
between  the  basis 
for  payment  and 
levels  of  error  in 
the  major  EU 
spending 
areas 
(common 
agricultural 

AFIR: the high level of payments corresponds to a short assessment period and a high number of projects. 

No. 

AA:  In  Romania’s  case,  we  could  rather  state  that  there  is  no  obvious  relationship  between  the basis  for  payment  and  levels  of error 
estimated in the major EU spending areas since, for the regional and urban policy, employment, social affairs and inclusion,  there are 
eligibility rules that apply to the projects in these policies (e.g. for investment projects – rules regarding procurement, rules regarding 

400 

 
 
 
policy, 
regional 
and  urban  policy, 
employment, 
social  affairs  and 
inclusion). 

expenditure), which do not offer enough flexibility so that the systems based on payment entitlements may be used similarly to the direct 
payments  to  farmers  within  the  common  agricultural  policy.  Furthermore,  the  complex  and  diverse  nature  of  these  projects  does  not 
provide  sufficient  assurance  as  to  the  eligibility  of  expenditure  exclusively  based  on  the  statements  of  the  beneficiaries  and  in  the 
absence of databases that are similar to the IACS/LPIS system used within the common agricultural policy, which is the main instrument 
for the performance of checks by the national responsible authorities.  Moreover, in Romania’s case, as far as the regional and urban 
policy, employment, social affairs and inclusion are concerned, the simplified cost option has not been used so that a system based on 
payments entitlements could be considered. 

Question 2.1.1. 

YES: AFIR: 

Links  between  EU 
the 
in 
priorities 
context 
the 
of 
Europe 2020 
strategy,  including 
Horizon 2020,  and 
national priorities. 

The  evaluation  studies  of  the  National  Programme  for  Rural  Development  2014-2020  will  analyse  the  progress  made  towards  the 
objectives of the programme  and its contribution to the fulfilment of the Union’s strategy for a smart, sustainable and more inclusive 
growth,  assessing,  among  others,  the  net  contribution  of  the  programme  to  the  change  in  the  values  of  CAP  (Common  Agricultural 
Policy) impact indicators and evaluation questions. 

AMPNR: 

From the preparation of the National Programme for Rural Development, pursuant to the strategy of the National Programme for Rural 
Development, the Romanian authorities correlated the objectives in the National Programme for Rural Development with the objectives 
of  CAP  and  Europe  2020  Strategy.  Thus,  the  objectives  of  Europe  2020  Strategy  will  be  achieved  in  2014-2020  through  the  EU 
priorities transposed by the areas of intervention and measures of the National Programme for Rural Development.  

MFE: 

The National Strategy for Research, Development  and  Innovation 2020 was developed in the wider context  of  Europe 2020  strategy, 
particularly in the context of the initiative Innovation Union and of the main implementation instrument – Horizon 2020, as well as in 
the context of its interrelation with cohesion policies. The National Strategy for Research, Development and Innovation is implemented 
by  a  set  of  instruments  financed  from  the  national  budget  –  through  the  National  Plan  for  Research,  Technology  Development  and 
Innovation 2015-2020 (National Plan for Research, Development and Innovation 3), the sectoral research programmes of the ministries, 
the  Research  Programme  of  the  Romanian  Academy,  as  well  as  from  ESIF  2014-2020  through  Operational  Programme 
“Competitiveness”  –  priority  axis  “Research,  technology  development  and  innovation  to  support  business  and  competitiveness”, 
Regional  Operational  Programme  (axis  Technology  transfer),  the  National  Programme  for  Rural  Development,  Operational 
Programme Human Capital (axis Education and training). 

The  National  Strategy  for  Research,  Development  and  Innovation  identified  the  following  types  of  scientific  priorities,  pursuant  to 
Europe 2020 Strategy and Horizon 2020 programme: 

Smart  specialisation  priorities:  bioeconomy;  information  and  communication  technology,  space  and  security;  energy, 

 
environment and climate change; eco-nanotechnologies and advanced materials. 
 

Priorities with public relevance: health, new and emerging technologies, patrimony and cultural identity. 

401 

 
 
Fundamental  research,  which  includes  humanities,  natural  and  exact  sciences,  socio-economic  disciplines  –  as  source  for 

 
frontier and interdisciplinary research. 
In support of these priorities, certain categories of projects are financed through the Operational Programme Competitiveness, namely 
through the National Plan for Research, Development and Innovation 2015-2020. 

Operational Programme Competitiveness – priority axis 1 “Research, technology development and innovation to support business and 
competitiveness” -  finances the following types of projects: 

1.  RO-ECSEL:  a  project  for  the  financing  of  eligible  research,  development  and  innovation  activities  of  participants  from  Romania 
within  the  projects  selected  for  financing  by  the  Joint  Technological  Initiative  ECSEL  Joint  Undertaking  within  the  calls  for  the 
framework-programme Horizon 2020, but which are not financed from Horizon 2020. 

2.  COMPLEMENT:  projects  for  the  financing  of  research,  development  and  innovation  activities  in  addition  to  the  projects  financed 
within the Joint Technological Initiatives (JTI) of Horizon 2020, which are outside the work plan of JTI (thus non-eligible for financing 
from  the  funds  of  the  framework-programme  Horizon  2020),  but  complement  the  activities  in  the  work  plan  and  contribute  to  the 
achievement of JTI objectives. 

3. RO-EIT: research, development and innovation projects for the consolidation of the participation of Romanian entities in the activities 
financed by the European Institute of Innovation & Technology (EIT). 

4.  RO-ESFRI-ERIC:  research,  development  and  innovation  projects  for  the  consolidation  of  the  participation  of  Romanian  entities  as 
partners  in  pan-European  ERIC  (European Research  Infrastructure Consortium)  research  infrastructures  or  mentioned  as  active  or 
“landmark” projects in the Roadmap 2016 of ESFRI (European Strategy Forum on Research Infrastructures).  

5. FINALIST-IMM: projects for the financing of research, development and innovation activities included in the proposals of the SMEs 
that participated individually in Horizon 2020 competitions for SME instrument – phase 2 and obtained the “Seal of Excellence” from 
the European Commission, but which were not selected for financing from the funds of the framework-programme. 

6. CATEDRE-ERA: projects for ERA chairs of Horizon 2020. CATEDRE-ERA projects under this action will finance investments for 
the development of research and development infrastructure in the departments of research organisations that have won funds for “ERA 
Chairs” projects in Horizon 2020 competitions, while Horizon 2020 will finance personnel and administrative costs. 

7. TEAMING: projects between strong research institutions and Romanian research institutions with potential to be excellent.  Horizon 
2020  will  finance  the  preparatory  phase  (including  the  development  of  a  business  plan)  for  the  development  of  the  research  and 
development capacity by teaming with a performing institution in another Member State. Structural funds will be included in the second 
teaming  phase  for  the  financing  of  the  investments  in  the  development  of  research  and  development  infrastructure  in  the  Romanian 
institution. 

The National Plan for Research, Development and Innovation 2015-2020 (National Plan III), financed from the state budget, which 

402 

 
 
 
 
includes Programme 3 – European and international cooperation. One of the objectives of the programme is Romania’s participation 
in the EU Research and Innovation Programme – Horizon 2020, in the Joint Programming Initiatives (JPI), in the European Innovation 
Partnerships (EIP), in other European and international bilateral and multilateral initiatives, programmes, organisations and conventions, 
by means of: 

 

 

 

support projects for the participation in Horizon 2020 projects (for example, Marie Curie COFUND and others); 

ERA-NET projects;  

other types of projects for the support of Romanian participation in the European joint programming initiatives (JPI).   

Question 2.1.2. 

to 
synergies 

Measures 
pursue 
and 
complementarities 
ESI 
between 
and 
Funds 
national 
programmes . 

AMPNDR: In the Partnership Agreement (PA) with the EU for 2014-2020, RO proposed an integrated approach to EU investments in 
order to ensure the complementarity of the use of ESIF and achievement of the joint thematic objectives. The practical means by which, 
at institutional level, synergies and coherence among ESIF interventions are ensured is the creation of a three-tier structured institutional 
mechanism of coordination:  i) PA monitoring committee, ii) five thematic sub-committees and iii) four functional working groups under 
the responsibility of and coordinated by MFE.  

The  role  of  the  mechanism  is  to  ensure  the  strategic  and  complementary  coordination  during  the  implementation  of  the  PA  and  the 
the  coherence,  synergies  and  delineation  from  other  national/  European 
programmes  financed  from  ESIF,  monitoring 
programmes/instruments.  The  coordination  of  the  interventions  through  the  above-mentioned  mechanism  covers  the  programmes 
financed from ESIF and the other EU programmes: HORIZON 2020, EaSI (the Employment and Social Innovation programme), FSUE 
(European Union Solidarity Fund), LIFE+, etc. 

In  the  context  of  the  PA  and  ESIF,  all  possibilities  to  ensure  complementarity  and  synergies  among  ESIF  instruments  have  been 
analysed  while  addressing  the  needs  in  the  rural  areas  and  in  order  to  facilitate  on-site  implementation,  ensuring  transparency  with 
respect to the remittances of various instruments, as well as their complementarity through the national programmes. 

MFE:  DGAPE (Directorate-General for Analysis, Programming and Evaluation) Upon the preparation of the research, development and 
innovation programmes financed from ESIF and from the national budget (National Plan III), synergy and complementarity have been 
ensured through: the support of the smart specialisation areas identified in the National Strategy for Research, Development and 
Innovation, the development of a critical mass of researchers and of the quality of human resources in research, the development of 
competitiveness, development and innovation (research, development and innovation infrastructure, technology transfer, innovative 
SMEs, etc), and the development of international cooperation.   

Question 2.2.1. 

Performance 

MFE:  The  operational  programmes  financed  from  ESIF  2014-2020  have  been  elaborated  mainly  taking  into  account  the  targets  of 
Europe  2020,  the  Country  Specific  Recommendations,  and  the  relevant  European  sectoral  strategies.  The  verification  of  this  link, 
including the evaluation of the manner in which the funds contribute to the achievement of the objectives of the European strategies, has 

403 

 
 
 
been  carried  out  as  early  as  the  ex-ante  evaluations  for  the  Partnership  Agreement  and  all  operational  programmes.  As  far  as 
projects/operations are concerned, given their size, their link to the European objectives is indirect, through the financing programmes. 
More specifically, projects/operations are evaluated in terms of their link and contribution to the objectives of operational programmes 
and national strategies, both before the funds are granted and during implementation and ex-post.  

measurement 
system  to  link  EU 
measures, 
operations 
projects 
priorities/Europe 
2020 
and targets. 

or 
to  EU 

objectives 

Question 2.2.2. 

Framework for the 
of 
management 
ESI 
in 
Funds 
order  to  achieve  a 
result-oriented 
system  and  impact 
of EU projects. 

MFE: 2014-2020 programming in Romania has been carried out with a focus on results. At operational programme level, the logic of 
the  operational  programme  intervention  has  taken  into  consideration  the  results.  Therefore,  each  operational  programme  includes 
(common or specific) result indicators. Moreover, for each priority axis of the operational programme, the indicators considered for the 
performance framework are identified (financial indicators + indicators of achievement and/ or key implementation stages). 

For each applicant’s guide, for each operational programme, the indicators that must be attained at project level are defined: indicators of 
achievement + result indicators. 

In  this  regard,  projects  are  assessed  before  the  funding  is  granted,  also  in  terms  of  the  formulation  of  objectives  and  establishing  of 
targets for the related indicators. We have also put in place a monitoring system for the projects that have received funding and an ESI 
fund  evaluation  system,  which  evaluates  the  obtained  results  and  impact  of  the  funds,  both  at  macro  level  (the  entire  territory  of  the 
country), at meso level (operational programmes), and at micro level (projects, sample).   

Question 2.2.3. 

Yes. 

Member 
State 
actions  to  define 
or  improve  result 
indicators  at  EU 
project level. 

Question 2.2.4. 

Performance 
measurement 
system  to  monitor 
achievement 
the 
objectives  at  EU 
measure, 
operations 

or 

MFE: Given that operational programmes and projects financed under them are linked (in terms of objectives and indicators), for each 
operational programme, an indicator guide has been prepared for the purpose of clarifying, for each indicator, what it means, when it is 
reported,  how  it  is  collected,  the  deadlines  etc.  Applicant’s  guides  also  specify  the  indicators  that  must  be  included  in  the  projects, 
monitored by the beneficiary and reported to the managing authority.  

ROP: 
ROP evaluation for the period 2007-2013  
http://www.inforegio.ro/en/rapoarte-de-evaluare-en.html 
The  Programme  Evaluation  Office  ensured  the  management  of  the  evaluation  studies,  which  analysed  both  the  suitability  of  ROP 
strategy for the development needs of the regions in a period characterised by substantial economic and social changes (economic crisis, 
unemployment, migration) and operational and procedural issues related to the programme implementation at central and regional level.  
In the period 2013-2015, the Programme Evaluation Office managed the implementation of a Framework Agreement for the carrying 
out of ROP impact assessments for each major scope of intervention, for the purpose of pointing out the effects of the interventions and 
the ERDF (European Regional Development Fund) contribution to the achievement of the regional development objectives. 

404 

 
 
project  level  and 
to  monitor 
the 
output  and  result 
indicators  at  EU 
measure, 
operations 
project level. 

or 

The eight impact assessment studies for the interventions have analysed what works, what does not work, the reason why, the period and 
the conditions. Additionally, the proposed methodology had special relevance, the counter-factual methodologies being used for the first 
time in Romania.   

ROP evaluation in the period 2014-2020  
The first set of evaluations, the period 2017-2018, will have a more limited scope due to the small number of implemented interventions. 
However, we estimate a significant added value from a methodological perspective, since their experience, data, findings, conclusions 
and  recommendations  will  be  an  input  both  for  the  decision-making  process  in  order  to  ensure  the  efficacy  of  ROP  and  for  future 
evaluations and their approach.    
Given the moment of its implementation, the second set of evaluations will provide evidence as to the contribution of ROP interventions 
to the achievement of proposed objectives, given their wider scope due to the progress in the programme implementation.  
An essential role of these evaluations is to contribute to the formulation of interventions for the next programming period (2021-2026). 
In 2019, the preparation of the new programme will commence and, given the experience acquired in the preparation of the current ROP, 
conclusions as to “what works” and “what does not work” will be needed in order to further ensure a result-oriented approach. 
At project level, the performance measurement system for the monitoring of the objectives and indicators of the projects has been and is 
formed of: 
•  the  supply  of  information  on  the  status  of  project  implementation  through  the  verification  of  the  Quarterly  Monitoring  Reports  of 
Intermediate Bodies, Visit Reports of Intermediate Bodies, Quarterly Progress Reports of Beneficiaries and through the verification in 
MYSMIS/SMIS2014+. 
• on-site visits of the Managing Authority, during the implementation period and ex-post, to the entities involved in the implementation 
of the projects in order: 
- 
- 
- 
• the setting-up of an information base by the Managing Authority for the reporting of the achievement of the indicators of the projects 
financed through the systematic collection of information regarding the conduct and results of certain activities, the analysis and use of 
such  information  for  the  purpose  of  monitoring  the  status  of  the  fulfilment  of  project  indicators  and  achievement  of  results  and 
objectives. 
For the measurement of programme performance, one must monitor both the direct contribution of project implementation, through the 
indicators of achievement, and the general impact, in terms of thematic objectives/ investment priorities for ROP priority axes, through 
the result indicators. 
The Monitoring Committee of the Regional Operational Programme 2014-2020 (CMPOR) analyses regularly ROP implementation and 
the progress towards the achievement of the established specific objectives. For this purpose, at least twice a year, CMPOR examines all 
issues affecting the evolution of the programme, namely financial data, common and specific programme indicators, changes in value in 
relation to result indicators, but also the progress towards the achievement of target values and stage objectives defined in the 
performance framework.    
AMPOP:  The  result  indicators  provided  in  POPAM  (Operational  Programme  for  Fisheries  and  Maritime  Affairs)  are  monitored  at 

to detect the issues with the implementation and to facilitate their settlement; 
to verify project performance as against the activities described in the Financing Contracts; 
to analyse the status of project implementation for the amendment/suspension/ termination of Financing Contracts; 

405 

 
 
 
project level, so that one may monitor individually the contribution of each project to the implementation of POPAM. Beneficiaries are 
required to specify the targets for each monitoring year and, annually, for the monitoring period, the staff of the Managing  Authority 
verifies the level of target achievement.  

AMPNDR: Reply 2.2.1 - 2.2.4  
The National Programme for Rural Development includes provisions aiming at the strengthening of result orientation.  
The  programme  presents  the  intervention  logic  used  to  address  the  identified  development  needs,  establishes  the  framework  for 
performance-related assessment and efficient implementation of EAFRD funds.  
In order to consolidate the result orientation of programming, the forecasted results are presented for each specific objective and related 
result indicators, with a basic value and a quantified target value. 

The programme provides the existence of a system of result indicators needed to select the actions that contribute most efficiently to the 
desired results, monitoring of progress towards the results and carrying out of impact assessment.  
Chapters 7 – Performance framework and 11 – Plan of indicators in the National Programme for Rural Development 2014-2020 present 
the above-mentioned issues. 
The  new  Common  Monitoring  and  Evaluation  System  (CMES)  of  rural  development  programmes  will  supply  information  to  the 
interested parties regarding the implementation of the rural development policy, its results and impact, given that the rural development 
policy is result-oriented. 
In order to check if the implementation of rural development programmes is properly carried out and for the achievement of objectives, 
CMES  provides  mandatory  reporting  in  different  implementation  periods,  correlated  with  the  reporting  of  the  Common  Agricultural 
Policy (CAP) and the other European structural and investment funds (ESIF). 
Thus,  annual  reporting  began  in  2016,  through  the  annual  implementation  report  and  will  continue  each  year,  providing  information 
regarding programme implementation, the progress of the programme evaluation plan and other issues influencing the implementation of 
the National Programme for Rural Development. 
In 2017 and 2019, the Managing Authority will send the European Commission consolidated annual implementation reports, which will 
include conclusions of the evaluations, such as the quantification of the results of the National Programme for Rural Development, etc., 
as well as replies to the evaluation questions, based on evaluation activities carried out by evaluators who are functionally independent 
from the Managing Authority. 
Pursuant  to  European  regulations,  evaluations  are  conducted  for  the  improvement  of  the  quality  of  programme  preparation  and 
implementation, as well as for the assessment of their efficacy, efficiency and impact by experts who are functionally independent from 
the authorities responsible for programme implementation. 
The  common  monitoring  and  evaluation  system  also  provides  an  evaluation  plan,  which  includes  the  evaluations  to  be  carried  out 
precisely to point out the results and impact of the programme. Thus, evaluations are provided with reference to the contribution of the 
National  Programme  for  Rural  Development  to  the  achievement  of  CAP  objectives,  of  the  European  Union  strategy  for  a  smart, 
sustainable  and  inclusive  growth,  given  the  social,  economic  and  environmental  situation  in  the  rural  areas  and  the  Partnership 

406 

 
 
 
 
Agreement. 
Furthermore,  the  evaluation  monitors  the  contribution  of  the  National  Programme  for  Rural  Development  to  the  rural  development 
priorities  and  the  programme  results  and  impact.  Consequently,  the  evaluation  will  contribute  to  the  improvement  of  programme 
implementation  and  will  be  used  as  a  basis  for  programme  change.  The  evaluation  topics  for  the  National  Programme  for  Rural 
Development consider the specific evaluation and monitoring needs identified during programme implementation, which will cover at 
least: the evaluation of result and impact indicators, the analysis of the net effect, thematic issues (including sub-programme), horizontal 
issues, the use of Technical Assistance, the contribution to the local development strategy and principle of partnership, National Rural 
Development Network, support for evaluation of the local action groups, programme specific elements  – the necessary activity for the 
development  of  methodologies  or  to  respond  to  needs  that  are  specific  to  certain  areas  (for  example  disadvantaged  mountain  areas), 
including in relation to transversal objectives.  
The evaluation activity ensures all information needed to draw up the Annual Implementation Reports presented between 2017 and 2019 
and the ex-post evaluation. Evaluations also analyse the changes further to programme interventions, the net effect of the programme, its 
implementation, including the complementarity and synergies with the other structural and investment funds. For the period 2014-2020, 
at least once, one must evaluate the manner in which European funds granted to Romania through EAFRD contribute to the achievement 
of  each  rural  development  priority  and  of  transversal  objectives.  The  evaluation  activity  also  allows  the  collection  of  data  needed  to 
establish the value of the complementary result indicators. 

MFE: 
The operational programme monitoring system establishes the way in which data are collected and reported. In terms of indicators, for 
each operational programme, an indicator guide has been prepared, which includes information related to: the name of the indicators, the 
unit measure, the type of indicators, the basic value, the definition, the calculation formula, the data source, the obligation to provide the 
data, the data format, data storage etc. 

Question 3.1.1. 

Yes. 

for 

Framework  or  a 
system 
the 
follow-up of ECA's 
recommendations 
to 
addressed 
Member  States  in 
annual 
Court's 
and 
special 
reports. 
Monitoring 
reporting 

and 
on 

APIA: 

The  organisational  structure  of  the  Paying  and  Intervention  Agency  for  Agriculture  includes  a  department  whose  duties  are  the 
monitoring and reporting of the progress in the implementation of the recommendations of external bodies, including the ECA.  In this 
regard, the above-mentioned structure carries out the following activities: 

preparation  of  an  action  plan  which  includes  the  recommendations  in  the  external  audit  reports,  the  structures  responsible  for 

 
their implementation and implementation deadlines; 

 

 

transmission of the action plan to the specialised departments for the supplementation of their means of implementation; 

centralisation of the replies of the specialised structures regarding the status of the implementation of recommendations; 

407 

 
 
 
progress  achieved 
towards 
to 
implementation  of 
Court's 
recommendations 

 

transmission of progress reports for the implementation of the recommendations to the external authorised bodies. 

The  progress  in  the  implementation  of  the  recommendations  of  external  bodies  is  monitored  regularly  and  reported  at  the  established 
deadlines or at the request of the authorised bodies.  

AFIR: An action plan has been prepared for the reduction of the error rate and it includes actions taken further to the recommendations 
of the ECA and EC. These actions are included in the Agency’s manuals of procedures. 

Increase  of  Economic 
MFE:  For  example,  within 
Competitiveness/Operational  Programme  Competitiveness,  there  is  an  operational  procedure  aiming  at  the  implementation  of  the 
recommendations and measures taken and a means of reporting their fulfilment. 

the  Sectoral  Operational  Programme 

the  authority  managing 

At the level of the authority managing SOP HRD/the Operational Programme Human Capital, there are instruments for the stocktaking 
and monitoring of the audit recommendations structured for each auditing entity, typology of shortcomings and projects concerned. 

The action plans monitor the degree of implementation of the recommendations and the application of unitary corrective actions for all 
intermediate bodies depending of the typology of the shortcomings. 

AMPOR  (Managing  Authority  for  the  Regional  Operational  Programme):  AMPOR  carries  out,  through  the  control  structure 
established  pursuant  to  Annex  12  to  Commission  Regulation  (EC)  No  1828/2006  of  December  2006  and  pursuant  to  the  powers 
established  under  Article  13(2)  of  the  same  Regulation,  the  checks  required  (...)  pursuant  to  Article  60(b)  of  Regulation  (CE)  No 
1083/2006, which will cover the administrative,  financial, technical and physical issues of the operations, as applicable,  to make sure 
that the statement of expenditure is accurate, that the products or services have been supplied pursuant to the approving decision, that the 
reimbursement requests by the beneficiary are correct and that the expenditure operations comply with Community and national  rules. 
These verifications include the procedures for the avoidance of double funding of costs under other Community or national schemes and 
other programming periods.  

Thus, for the application of the provisions of Article 60(a) and (b) of Regulation (EC) No 1083/2006, pursuant to which the Managing 
Authority is responsible, in accordance with the principle of sound financial management, on the one hand, for entrusting that operations 
comply,  for  the  whole  of  their  implementation  period,  with  the  applicable  Community  and  national  rules  and,  on  the  other  hand,  for 
verifying that all expenditure declared by the beneficiaries complies with the Community and national rules;  

in  conjunction  with  the  provisions  of  Article  61(b)(ii),  which  provide  that  the  Certifying  and  Paying  Authority  is  responsible  for 
certifying  that  all  expenditure  declared  complies  with  applicable  Community  and  national  rules  and  has  been  incurred  in  respect  of 
operations selected for funding in accordance with the criteria applicable to the programme and complying with Community and national 

408 

 
 
 
 
 
 
rules, 

and also in conjunction with Article 62(1) and Article 16(2) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1828/2006, which provide that the Audit 
Authority  (last  national  level  of  verification)  has  the  same  obligations,  namely  to  certify  that  all  expenditure  declared  complies  with 
applicable Community and national rules and has been incurred for the operations selected for funding in accordance with the  criteria 
applicable  to  the  programme  and  applicable  Community  and  national  rules  and,  in  relation  to  the  obligations  to  protect  the  financial 
interests  of  the  European  Union  in  Romania  resulting  from  the  provisions  of  Council  Regulation  (EC,  Euratom)  No  2988/95  on  the 
protection of the European Communities financial interests, AM POR carries out, further to the referrals received, through the control 
structure, checks in order to determine the eligibility of expenditure in relation to the rules of interpretation imposed by the European 
Commission,  rules  that  have  been  formalised  as  RECOMMENDATIONS  (accepted  further  to  conciliations  pursuant  to  the  related 
procedures  and  laws),  as recorded  in  the  audit  reports  of  the  European  Court of Auditors, of  the  European  Commission  and/or  of  the 
Audit Authority within the Romanian Court of Auditors, pursuant to their powers; the obligation to apply these rules of interpretation 
(recommendations) results from the above-mentioned Community rules, in the application of the provisions of Article 15 and Article 16 
of  Commission Regulation (EC)  No  1828/2006. The obligation to  implement  these rules of interpretation  (recommendations*)  is also 
provided by the national law, under Article 5(c) of Government Emergency Order No 66/2011. 

The recommendations in the audit reports of the European Court of Auditors, of the European Commission and/or of the Audit Authority 
within the Romanian Court of Auditors are interpreted and implemented in an uniform manner at the level of the Managing Authority for 
the  Regional  Operational  Programme,  the  findings  of  the  control  structure  regarding  the  existence  of  irregularities  *  within  the 
application of contractual provisions and/or legal provisions being the exclusive result of these recommendations in  relation to similar 
audited cases. 

*the qualification of the irregularity and establishing of budget claims shall be performed pursuant the legislative act in force on the date 
when  the  irregularity  is  committed  pursuant  to  tempus  regit  actum  principle,  namely  depending  on  the  way  in  which  it  is  defined  by 
Article  2.7  of  Council  Regulation  No  1083/2006  of  11  July  2006,  laying  down  general  provisions  on  the  European  Regional 
Development  Fund,  the  European  Social  Fund  and  the  Cohesion  Fund  and  repealing  Regulation  (EC)  No 1260/1999,  as  being  any 
infringement of a provision of Community law resulting from an act or omission by an economic operator which has, or would have, the 
effect of prejudicing the general budget of the European Union by charging an unjustified item of expenditure to the general budget. 

The provisions of Article 1(2) of Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2988/95 of 18 December 1995 on the protection of the European 
Communities financial interests, published in the official Journal of the European Union Series L No 312 of 23 December 1995 provide 
the same, namely that “Irregularity shall mean any infringement of a provision of Community law resulting from an act or omission by 
an economic operator, which has, or would have, the effect of prejudicing the general budget of the Communities or budgets managed by 
them,  either  by  reducing  or  losing  revenue  accruing  from  own  resources  collected  directly  on  behalf  of  the  Communities,  or  by  an 
unjustified item of expenditure” 

The Court of Justice of the European Union held the same, by Judgment ECLI:EU:C:2016:360 of 26.05.2016 in joined cases C-260/14 
and C-261/14, concerning requests for a preliminary ruling under Article 267 TFEU from the Bacău Court of Appeal (Romania), made 
by decisions of 8 May 2014, received by the Court on 30 May 2014 with regard to the interpretation of Article 1, Article 2, Article 4 and 

409 

 
 
Article 5(c) of Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No  2988/95 of 18 December 1995 on the protection of the European Communities 
financial interests (OJ 1995, L 312, p. 1, Special edition, 01/vol. 1, p. 166), as well as Article 2(7) and Article 98 of Council Regulation 
(EC) No 1083/2006 of 11 July 2006 laying down general provisions on the European Regional Development Fund, the European Social 
Fund and the Cohesion Fund and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999 (OJ 2006, L 210, p. 25, Special edition, 14/vol. 2, p. 64). 

AMPOP: The Managing Authority does not receive directly the reports further to the audit missions of the ECA. They are sent to the 
Managing  Authority  by  the  Audit  Authority  and  the  replies  regarding  the  implementation  of  recommendations  are  also  sent  to  this 
institution. Pursuant to the monitoring procedure for the implementation of the recommendations in the audit reports, the personnel of 
the Programming, Methodology, Monitoring Service distributes the received reports to the structures responsible for the notified issues 
and centralises the replies from them in order to be sent to the Audit Authority. For issues with financial implications, pursuant to the 
irregularity procedure, the personnel of the Control Service initiate the irregularity procedure for the issues indicated in these reports and 
monitors the potential recovery. 

410 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Slovakia 

Question 1.1.1 

Main  root  causes 
in  the  major  EU 
areas 
spending 
(common 
agricultural 
policy, 
regional 
and  urban  policy, 
employment, 
social  affairs  and 
inclusion)  for  the 
persisting 
risks 
and errors pointed 
out by the ECA. 

NB: In order to develop the replies, the following non-exhaustive list of examples for 
root causes of legality and regularity errors in EU expenditure may be considered (* 
- CAP; + - regional and urban policy; x – employment, social affairs and inclusion) 

Not 
relevant 

Relevant 
in some 
respect 

Relevant 
in most 
respect 

Fully 
relevant 

+ 

+ 

  number and complexity of rules and gold-plating 

 

incorrect transposition of applicable EU legislation into national laws 

*+ 

 

failure to observe the legal and procedural requirements stemming from 
EU and national legislation and rules 

  sufficient knowledge in applying procurement rules or State aid rules or 
other  applicable  EU  legislation  and  rules  (including  conditions  and 
eligibility  criteria  for  the  rural  development  measures,  simplified  cost 
options,  reasonableness  of  costs,  result-oriented  agri-environment 
payments) 

  complex eligibility rule 

  weaknesses  in  the  set  of  eligibility  rules  that  may  lead  to  potential  for 

circumventing them 

 

insufficient quality and up-date of the Land Parcel Identification System 
(LPIS) 

  mistakes in the aid applications 

  continued risks of misinterpretation of what is the eligible area for the 

basic payment scheme  

 

inefficient sanction mechanism for non-compliance or low sanction rate 
for non-compliance 

x 

x 

x 

* 

*+ 

x 

* 

* 

*+ 

*+ 

* 

* 

* 

+x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

+ 

+ 

411 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  need  of  raising  awareness,  targeted  training,  and,  development  and 
delivery  of  detailed  methodological  support  and  guidance  for  national 
and regional authorities and final beneficiaries 

  need of more or better resources and administrative capacity building 

  need  of  an  improved  quality  of  key  aspects  of  the  supervisory  and 
control  systems  (better  design  and/or  performance  of  administrative 
checks  and  on-the-spot  controls  and/or  increase  of  the  effectiveness  of 
the  work  carried  out  by  management  verifications,  audit  authorities, 
paying agencies and certification bodies) 

  better use of the information necessary to detect and correct available in 
the supporting documents, as well as at the level of the beneficiary or a 
national/regional body 

  sufficiently robust action plans developed to address both the causes of 
errors  and  the  weaknesses  in  the  management  and  control  systems 
and/or deficiencies in the EU spending 

 

insufficient  introduction  of  changes  by  new  legal  and/or  regulatory 
and/or procedural frameworks likely to have a significant impact on the 
causes of errors 

*+ 

  need  of  more  initiatives  for  ensuring  a  genuine  simplification  for 

beneficiaries and programmes' implementation 

  knowledge and experience sharing, and dissemination of good practices 
improving  widespread 

level  on 

at  national  and/or  at  EU 
weaknesses/deficiencies/errors 

+ 

+ 

+ 

*x 

*+x 

*x 

*x 

+ 

*+x 

x 

* 

* 

+x 

x 

+ 

  expected  results  from  actions  that  will  not  always  be  evident  in  short-

*x 

term 

Ministry of Labour, Social Affairs and Family: The complexity and vagueness of rules (from Europe to national) and amendments 
thereto over time, often with retroactive effect. 

412 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Ministry of the Environment: In connection with ‘compliance with EU and/or national eligibility rules’: 

The  root  causes  of  persistent  risks  and  errors  in  main  areas  of  EU  expenditure  are  as  follows  under  the  Operational  Programme 
Environment:  

 

the  investment  nature  of  projects  supported  under  the  Operational  Programme  Environment  –  investment  projects  related  to 
environmental  infrastructure  are  characterised  by  a  preparatory  stage  that  places  high  demands  on  time,  administration  and 
financing, which delays the uptake of such projects’ expenditure. In addition, the course followed by the implementation stage of 
these projects, usually entailing an implementation period of several years, has such parameters that rapid uptake is impossible in the 
initial stages of implementation; rather, the uptake of resources is spread evenly across the entire project implementation period;  
  problems identified during on-the-spot checks, such as work that has been invoice but not carried out, errors in the calculation of the 
bill of quantities, mismatches between construction work done and the project documentation. Missing documentation required for 
submission in an on-the-spot check (failure to produce delivery notes for building materials, a report on the handover of the building 
site, confirmation of insurance, any insufficient insurance coverage, an overview of activities by external management), resulting in 
the identification of ineligible expenditure; 

  poor-quality project preparation even in the initial stages of the process, manifested in the actual implementation of the projects – 
consequently,  a  large  number  of  project  change  requests  (concerning,  for  example,  technology  processes,  extensions  to  deadlines 
stemming from the binding timeframe for the implementation of project activities, changes in the materials used, etc.); 

  poor-quality  documents  submitted  by  beneficiaries  –  the  beneficiaries  submit  repeatedly  flawed  outputs,  in  particular  payment 
claims  where  inconsistencies  are  evident  between  invoicing  and  the  contracts  with  suppliers/contractors,  resulting  in  the 
quantification of ineligible expenditure and an attendant reduction in the amount claimed; 
inadequate performance of a first-level check on the cost-effectiveness and reasonableness of project expenditure – the provision of 
public resources beyond the eligible framework. 

 

In connection with ‘compliance with EU and national public procurement legislation’: 

 

 

a protracted and convoluted public procurement process and the related non-compliance with procedures and rules under the Public 
Procurement  Act  by  beneficiaries  –  public  procurement  is  administratively  demanding;  the  intensity  differs  depending  on  the 
procurement  procedure  to  be  used.  This  affects  the  timetable  for  the  implementation  of  public  procurement.  Public  procurement 
carried out by beneficiaries exhibits high error rates downstream, resulting in the need to repeat the tender and delaying the actual 
uptake at project level; 
the  submission  of  incomplete  documentation  by  beneficiaries,  failure  to  keep  to  binding  deadlines,  the  time-consuming  nature  of 
checks  on  the  large  volumes  of  public  procurement  documentation  submitted,  general  problems  implementing  the  public 
procurement process, suspension of the process of running an administrative check on public procurement rules in connection with 
the determination of a time limit for requesting tender dossiers. 

In connection with ‘compliance with State aid rules’: 

413 

 
 
 
State aid has recently been simplified somewhat by the expansion of block exemptions. The expansion of areas covered by block 
exemptions is often ineffective due to the vagueness and ambiguity of the rules and/or conditions established, and the excessively 
protracted and convoluted acquisition of explanations from the Commission on individual provisions relating to block exemptions. 
On  the  other  hand,  not  all  cases  where  an  ESIF  contribution  is  to  be  provided  can  be  classified  under  block  exemptions,  hence 
notification is required. The notification process is highly complex.  

Paradoxically,  however,  a  Member  State  is  not  given  enough  opportunity  to  explain  the  specific  nature  of  a  particular  case.  The 
actual assessment of compliance with State aid rules is largely subjective in more complex cases. 

Ministry  of  Agriculture  and  Rural  Development:  We  have  obtained  the  following  observations  for  the  Regional  Development 
Programmes Section of the Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development: Most cases where an error by the Ministry of Agriculture 
and Rural Development, as the managing authority for the ROP and the Operational Programme Bratislava Region, has been identified 
concern  the  inadequate  performance  of  a  first-level  public  procurement  check.  This  finding  can  be  attributed  to  multiple  factors, 
especially human error in the application of European directives and national Slovak law in public procurement checks. The second most 
common finding is that the performance of project activities in contravention of a grant agreement under the ROP mainly involves the 
performance of activities in contravention of the grant agreement and a schedule thereto – the project budget.  

Ministry of Education, Science, Research and Sport: In the 2007-2013 programming period, the managing authority introduced the 
concept  of  ex-ante  checks  on  public  procurement  documentation  for  strategic  contracts  (in  excess  of  EUR 1 million)  at  the  pre-
publication  stage  in  order  to  effectively  eliminate  errors  and  shortcomings  in  public  procurement,  thereby  mitigating  the  risk  of  an 
infringement  of  the  Public  Procurement  Act.  The  obligation  to  conduct  ex-ante  checks  (for  all  above-the-limit  contracts)  was 
subsequently also adopted by the ESIF Financial Management System in the 2014-2020 programming period. 

Ministry of Economy: Experience of verifying the process of public procurement pursued by beneficiaries indicates a high error rate, 
resulting in the need to repeat the tender and delay the actual uptake at project level. Public procurement issues can be considered the 
most  serious  problem  in  relation  to  uptake  and  the  performance  of  project  activities.  A  problem  resulting  from  methodological 
uncertainty has also surfaced in individual stages of project implementation and required the adoption of effective measures on a national 
scale.  

As far as compliance with European and national eligibility rules is concerned, a particular problem was the frequent amendments to Act 
No 25/2006 on public procurement and amending certain laws, which then meant that calls currently advertised had to be revised. The 
frequent  amendment/supplementation  of  existing 
regulations  among 
applicants/beneficiaries and resulted in a higher error rate. 

laws  adversely  affected  knowledge  of  current 

Ministry of Labour, Social Affairs and Family:  

  Emphasis  on  prevention  –  organisation  of  informative  workshops  for  beneficiaries,  strict  definitions  of  the  types  of  eligible 

expenditure, the application of simplified expenditure reporting rules (the types and quantities of documents to be submitted). 

414 

Question 1.1.2. 

lessons 
Main 
while 
learned 
addressing 
the 
risks  and  errors 
for 
EU 
the 
spending. 

 
 
 
 

In the procurement of ICT, it is necessary to keep track of the case-law of the EU Court of Justice and guidelines published by the 
Commission  in  this  area,  e.g.  Communication  from  the  Commission  to  the  European  Parliament,  the  Council,  the  European 
Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions ‘Against lock-in: building open ICT systems by making better 
use of standards in public procurement’. 

  The need to step up cooperation between bodies involved in the management and control system – the need for mutual information 
on  shortcomings  detected  during  auditing,  checks  and  certification  verifications,  including  auditing  by  the  Commission  and  the 
ECA. 

Ministry of the Environment: 

 

compliance with EU and national eligibility rules: 

The main observations made in the handling of expenditure-related risks and errors under the Operational Programme Environment are:  

 

 

the  disproportionate  extension  of  projects  under  the  Operational  Programme  Environment  without  appropriate  measures  by 
beneficiaries, i.e. the implementation of all measures necessary to carry out all project activities even in those cases where public 
procurement is repeated several times;  
expenditure is inefficiently incurred and is inconsistent with prices common on the market at the time and place it is incurred; 

 

compliance with EU and national public procurement legislation: 

The main observations made in the handling of expenditure-related risks and errors under the Operational Programme Environment are:  

 

a protracted and convoluted public procurement process and the related non-compliance with procedures and rules under the Public 
Procurement  Act  by  beneficiaries  –  public  procurement  is  administratively  demanding;  the  intensity  differs  depending  on  the 
procurement  procedure  to  be  used.  This  affects  the  timetable  for  the  implementation  of  public  procurement.  Public  procurement 
carried out by beneficiaries exhibits high error rates downstream, resulting in the need to repeat the  tender and delaying the actual 
uptake at project level. The public procurement processes pursued by beneficiaries and the managing authority alike were heavily 
influenced by the ‘large-scale’ amendment to the Public Procurement Act, effective from 1 July 2013, as a result of which, in order 
to  comply  with  certain  provisions  that  had  been  heavily  altered  by  the  amendment,  beneficiaries  needed  longer  to  prepare 
documentation  underlying  their  call  for  tenders.  In  2013,  public  procurement  processes  were  also  significantly  affected  by  the 
preliminary findings of Commission audits, according to which a restriction on the time limit for requesting a tender dossier could be 
regarded as an approach inconsistent with Directive 2004/18/EC of 31 March 2004 on the coordination of procedures for the award 
of public works contracts, public supply contracts and public service contracts, and could have an adverse impact on  expenditure 
financed within the scope of public procurement. This resulted in the suspension, under all operational programmes of the National 
Strategic  Reference  Framework,  of  checks  on  public  procurement  documentation  in  which  the  time  limit  for  requesting  a  tender 

415 

 
 
 
 
 
dossier was restricted; from the perspective of the project cycle, this lasted for quite a long time, i.e. from June to December 2013. 

Improvements for the current 2014-2020 programming period: 

The intermediate body conducts financial controls on compliance with national and EU rules in the procurement of goods, services and 
works  and  associated  procedures  in  accordance  with  Act  No 357/2015  on  financial  control  and  auditing  and  amending  certain  laws. 
These encompass public procurement checks focusing on award procedure demonstrably commenced since 18 April 2016. 

The  penalty  mechanism  for  failing  to  adhere  to  the  Timetable  for  the  Financial  Implementation  of  the  Project  ensures  the  timely 
implementation of the project and the efficient uptake of financial resources under the Operational Programme Environmental Quality. 
The Timetable for the Financial Implementation of the Project is binding on the beneficiary. Consequently, if the beneficiary has been 
late in the financial implementation of the project according to the current Timetable for the Financial Implementation of the Project by 
more than two three-month periods, this constitutes a breach of the Grant Agreement and entitles the grantor to reduce the amount of the 
grant. 

Central coordination body: The ambiguous interpretation of rules when multiple policies are applied at once (e.g. cost-benefit analysis 
versus  State  aid,  simplified  cost  reporting  versus  public  procurement,  or  State  aid).  The  scope  of  binding  rules  is  transformed,  by 
convoluted means, into requirements for aid beneficiaries and consequently it is impossible to avoid the spread of ‘gold plating’. 

Ministry  of  Agriculture  and  Rural  Development:  In  its  handling  of  risks  and  errors,  the  managing  authority  for  the  ROP  and  the 
Operational  Programme  Bratislava  Region  often  encounters  divergent  opinions  among  national  authorities  on  how  to  deal  with 
shortcomings in the areas mentioned. We also come across inconsistent approaches by the same authority to two identical, but separate, 
shortcomings. Many shortcomings take a lot of time to resolve, especially if they require the opinions of national authorities other than 
the managing authority (e.g. National Crime Agency). In the new 2014-2020 programming period, the above approaches could emerge 
as a serious problem because accounts will be closed annually, not just at the end of the programming period, as has been the case thus 
far. Vague legislation and definitions of eligible costs intensify the risk of error. 

Question 1.1.3. 

Good 
practices 
and  examples  of 
success  stories  in 
of 
areas 
the 
compliance  with 
EU  and  national 
eligibility 
rules, 
compliance  with 
EU  and  national 
public 

Ministry of Education, Science, Research and Sport: On the strength of experience gained from the 2007-2013 programming period, 
the managing authority view ex-ante checks as a good practice already applied by the ESIF Financial Management System in the 2014-
2020 programming period. The managing authority hails ex-ante checks as a highly effective means of preventing shortcomings in the 
public procurement process. Use of this concept helps to reduce the error rate in the public procurement process. 

The Ministry of Education, Science, Research and Sport, as the intermediate body of the Operational Programme Human Resources in 
the  2014-2020  programming  period,  has  decided  to  employ  simplified  expenditure  reporting  in  the  implementation  of  national  and 
demand-driven projects. A standard scale of unit costs has been approved:  

 

 

a  standard  scale  of  unit  costs  for  a  teaching  assistant  –  the  monthly  costs  of  the  newly  created  position  of  teaching  assistant  at 
nursery and primary schools; 
a standard scale of unit costs for an inclusive team – the monthly costs of the newly created position of school psychologist/social 

416 

 
 
 
procurement 
legislation, 
and 
compliance  with 
State aid rules. 

 

educator at primary schools; 
a standard scale of unit costs for the ECDL certificate.  
Other SCO proposals are being discussed with the Commission.  

Ministry of Economy: Measures taken to verify compliance with EU and national public procurement legislation can be regarded as 
successful.  During  the  2007-2013  programming  period,  in  order  to  mitigate  the  risk  of  errors  in  the  implementation  of  public 
procurement, the managing authority for the Operational Programme Competitiveness and Economic Growth took multiple measures  – 
training  and  consultations  for  beneficiaries,  the  publication  and  periodic  updating  of  information  on  the  most  common  errors  and 
shortcomings identified in checks on the public procurement process by the managing authority and the Office for Public Procurement, 
and on related consequences, the introduction of the possibility for beneficiaries to submit public procurement documentation for ex-ante 
assessment prior to publication, the introduction of the requirement for a call for tenders to be made for the main project activities at the 
time grant applications are submitted, the production of a guide for beneficiaries, taking the form of a public procurement checklist, and 
other guidelines for beneficiaries, which it is necessary to follow up on in the 2014-2020 programming period.  

Multiple measures were also taken by the managing authority for the Operational Programme Competitiveness and Economic Growth 
during the 2007-2013 programming period to speed up and increase the reliability and efficiency of public procurement checks. These 
included  the  periodic  training  of  the  managing  authority’s  employees  responsible  for  conducting  public  procurement  checks  and  the 
stepping-up of cooperation with the Office for Public Procurement. 

Ministry of Labour, Social Affairs and Family: 

  The  introduction  of  expenditure  limits,  the  introduction  of  simplified  expenditure  reporting  instruments  (unit  cost  and  flat  rate), 

 
 
 
 
 

 

 

which reduced the level of ineligible expenditure; 
the introduction of unannounced on-the-spot checks/visits to beneficiaries; 
the performance of an initial on-the-spot check during the early stage of project implementation; 
the establishment of a Coordination Committee for cooperation in public procurement checks; 
the activity of a working group for public procurement cooperation;  
the  establishment  of  an  FAQ  clinic  for  public  procurement  and  publication  of  the  most  commonly  repeated  errors  in  the  public 
procurement process on the managing authority’s website, and the publication of a notification for beneficiaries on the determination 
of the estimated value of the contract; 
the  introduction  of  ex-ante  checks  on  the  correct  configuration  of  public  procurement  processes/procedures  and  the  eligibility  for 
certain activities to be carried out by third parties prior to project approval; 
the introduction of the beneficiary’s obligation to draw up a procurement plan on the award of contracts deriving from the approved 
project  in  order  to  verify  that  the  beneficiary’s  procedures  have  been  correctly  configured  for  the  planned  public  procurement 
process in relation to the Public Procurement Act, and in order to meet the project objectives; 

417 

 
 
 
 
 

  The  introduction  of  ex-ante  checks  on  above-the-limit  contracts  (beneficiaries  informed  of  the  obligation  to  submit  draft  public 
procurement  notifications and draft tender dossiers relating to above-the-limit  contracts for ex-ante checks, and documents on the 
calculation of the estimated value of the contract for checks by the managing authority prior to the planned call for tenders); 
the introduction of administrative checks to test for the quality of public procurement on a sample of six public procurement cases 
randomly selected from a list of internal records of checks on public procurement at least once every calendar half-year; 
the  introduction  of  repeat  administrative  checks  on  public  procurement  (e.g.  further  to  the  results  of  an  on-the-spot  check, 
government audit, Commission audit, etc.); 
the introduction of on-the-spot checks on public procurement documentation (on-the-spot checks). 

 

 

Ministry of the Environment: 

Best practices under the Operational Programme Environment:  

 

the application of crisis management elements in the implementation of projects identified as posing a risk from the perspective of 
utilising the financial commitment (in particular in relation to projects where public procurement for the main project activities has 
not been completed, in relation to projects where zero or low utilisation is reported due to the duration of project implementation, the 
identification of problems in the performance of project activities, etc.); 
the application of crisis management elements in connection with the implementation of major projects;  

 
  ongoing cooperation with the Office for Public Procurement with a view to speeding up and enhancing the quality, reliability and 
efficiency  of  public  procurement  checks  by  project  managers,  and  subsequent  periodic  training  of  employees  responsible  for 
performing  public  procurement  checks.  In  parallel,  the  continued  provision  of  training  and  consultations  focusing  on  project  and 
financial management by the beneficiary in order to eliminate beneficiaries’ errors as they comply with obligations incumbent on 
them under grant agreements (e.g. the quality of the public procurement documentation submitted, the payment claims submitted, 
monitoring reports, etc.); 
in  selected  calls  geared  towards  activities  that  are  time-consuming  in  their  implementation,  the  introduction  –  as  one  of  the 
conditions for the granting of aid – of a call for tenders covering main project activities at the time the grant application is submitted; 
any measure that can be linked to State aid rules, and the more detailed configuration thereof, is consulted with the national contact 
point (in Slovakia this is the Antimonopoly Office) and, in more complex cases, or in cases potentially leading to the notification of 
the  measure  to  the  Commission,  the  measure  is  also  consulted  with  the  Commission,  drawing  on  all  available  instruments  and 
sources of information, including e-State Aid Wiki. 

 

 

Central coordination body: The application of simplified cost reporting for the projects of the Ministry of Labour, Social Affairs and 
Family  has  helped  to  root  out  errors,  reduce  the  administrative  intensity,  and  increase  operational  programme  uptake.  Curbing  the 
application of simplified cost reporting due to a tenuous public procurement link inhibits the broader introduction of such reporting. 

Ministry  of  Agriculture  and  Rural  Development:  The  production  of  guidance  notes  and  methodological  guidelines  for  applicants, 

418 

 
 
 
 
covering the procedure for submitting applications, the use of standardised costs, clear rules. 

Question 1.2.1. 

Further  measures 
the 
enhance 
to 
effectiveness of the 
checks  carried  out 
before 
declaring 
certifying 
or 
expenditure  to  the 
Commission. 

Ministry of Education, Science, Research and Sport: In the new 2014-2020 programming period, the managing authority has set up 
sufficient mechanisms to eliminate any risks associated with the downstream risk of unauthorised expenditure linked to the operational 
programmes implemented. The managing authority/intermediate body has drawn up procedures to safeguard anti-fraud measures, risk 
assessment  procedures,  and  guidelines  on  the  assessment  of  the  cost-effectiveness  of  expenditure,  and  has  sufficient  expert 
administrative capacities. 

Ministry of Labour, Social Affairs and Family: 

 
 
 
 

 

retrospective verification of payment claims; 
retrospective verification of public procurement;  
the scaling-up of the number of unannounced on-the-spot checks/visits to beneficiaries; 
the introduction of at least two on-the-spot checks during project implementation, not later than the payment of the final payment 
claim. The initial on-the-spot check is carried out by the intermediate body in an early stage of project implementation, i.e. within 
three months of the start of the performance of project activities, and no later than the run-up to the approval of the first payment 
claim; 
supplementary  monitoring  data  on  payment  claims,  to  be  submitted  by  the  beneficiary  for  each  payment  claim  entailing  the 
clearance  of  an  advance  or  an  interim  payment.  This  will  ensure  that,  in  assessments  of  the  eligibility  of  expenditure  and  in  the 
reimbursement  thereof,  relevant  information  will  be  available  in  terms  of  what  has  been  achieved  with  the  corresponding 
expenditure and how work on the project has progressed. 

Ministry of the Environment:  

 

 

intensive  use  of  personal  consultations  (by  telephone  or  email)  with  beneficiaries  during  the  preparation  and  checking  of  public 
expenditure, and performance of activities; 
the  continued  application  of  management  in  the  implementation  of  high-risk  projects  where  public  procurement  has  not  been 
completed, i.e. the application of crisis management elements in the implementation of projects identified as posing a risk from the 
perspective  of  uptake  (in  particular  in  relation  to  projects  where  public  procurement  for  the  main  project  activities  has  not  been 

419 

 
 
completed,  in  relation  to  projects  where  zero  or  low  utilisation  is  reported,  in  relation  to  projects  where  problems  have  been 
identified in the performance of project activities, etc.). 

Central coordination body: The powers wielded by the Office for Public Procurement in ex-ante public procurement checks have been 
strengthened. 

Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development: The managing authority for the Operational Programme Bratislava Region, the ROP 
and the IROP plans to increase the capacities of qualified employees who are to contribute to the performance of timely project checks 
under  individual  programmes,  with  a  view  to  increasing  the  effectiveness  of  checks  and,  in  particular,  the  timely  detection  of 
shortcomings. In the context of preventing errors, the managing authority is planning to continue follow-up training for its employees on 
the  errors  made,  public  procurement  issues,  and  the  activities  of  institutions  intervening  in  public  procurement.  The  actual  method 
employed  to  conduct  checks  on  payment  claims  submitted  by  a  beneficiary  is  another  of  the  measures  to  cut  down  on  ineligible 
expenditure declared to the Commission. Specifically, this entails the exclusion of contentious expenditure from payment claims and its 
assessment in a check independent of the check on a payment claim’s eligible expenditure. Reinforcement of the training of employees 
conducting  checks  and  the  safeguarding  of  uniform  methodological  procedures  for  the  performance  of  checks,  the  submission  of 
complete documentation relating to applications.  

Ministry of Education, Science, Research and Sport: Other measures include the submission of expenditure for checking to the Office 
for Public Procurement, the Antimonopoly Office and any  other relevant bodies. In addition, more communication and checks by the 
managing  authority  in  the  declaration  of  expenditure,  in  which  respect  shortcomings  have  been  identified  on  the  strength  of  audit 
findings. 

Ministry of Labour, Social Affairs and Family: 

 
 
 

the scaling-up of the number of unannounced on-the-spot checks/visits to beneficiaries; 
thematic on-the-spot checks at beneficiaries; 
the  introduction  of  repeat  administrative  checks  on  public  procurement  (e.g.  further  to  the  results  of  an  on-the-spot  check, 
government audit, Commission audit, etc.). 

Ministry of the Environment:  

  provision of training for beneficiaries; 
  preparation of guidelines for beneficiaries;  
 

the managing authority has added the opportunity for beneficiaries to submit a draft contract notice and draft tender dossier, even 
within the framework of below-the-limit contracts, to the managing authority for preliminary assessment;  
the  most  common  shortcomings  in  the  public  procurement  process  under  the  Operational  Programme  Environment  have  been 
published at www.opzp.sk;  
the creation of a public procurement control unit to streamline the process of checking public procurement;  
the recruitment of external staff to run public procurement checks; 

 

 
 

420 

Question 1.2.2. 

Further  measures 
the 
to 
enhance 
of 
effectiveness 
actions 
to  detect 
and  correct  errors 
concerning 
expenditure, which 
previously 
was 
or 
declared 
certified 
the 
to 
Commission. 

 
 
  measures adopted by reference to the central coordination body’s guideline on ‘Reduced time limits for requesting a tender dossier’ 

of 6 December 2013. 

Central coordination body: The IT monitoring system is being interlinked with other databases managed by the State. This will enable 
the  State  to  run  real-time  assessments  of  applicants  and,  during  implementation,  beneficiaries  without  having  to  increase  the 
administrative burden. 

Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development: An update of the Internal Procedures Manual, in which checking procedures were 
updated  in  the  light  of  experience  gained  from  the  previous  programming  period.  In  the  new  programming  period,  the  managing 
authority  for  the  ROP  and  the  Operational  Programme  Bratislava  Region,  and  where  appropriate  the  IROP,  will  manage  risks  in 
accordance with Article 125(4)(c) of the General Regulation. This is a means for the managing authority to prevent or eliminate risks, 
fraud and the resulting fallout.  

Question 1.3.1. 

Risk  analysis  and 
estimated  level  of 
error  in  the  major 
EU spending areas 
(common 
agricultural 
policy, 
regional 
and  urban  policy, 
employment, 
social  affairs  and 
inclusion). 

Ministry of Education, Science, Research and Sport: The Ministry of Education, Science, Research and Sport has taken measures in 
its intensified performance of administrative checks on expenditure and on-the-spot checks. Guidelines have been drawn up for project 
managers  on  these  two  areas.  The  Ministry  of  Education,  Science,  Research  and  Sport  has  paid  attention  to  the  expenditure  claimed 
within the scope of problematic public procurement. Public procurement expenditure, depending on the amount thereof, is handled in 
close cooperation with the Office for Public Procurement. 

Ministry of Economy: In relation to the 2014-2020 programming period, specifically under the Operational Programme Research and 
Innovation,  which  –  in  substance  –  is  the  ‘successor’  to  the  Operational  Programme  Competitiveness  and  Economic  Growth,  a 
systematic  approach  has  been  introduced  for  the  identification,  evaluation,  management  and  monitoring  of  risks  that  could  adversely 
affect implementation and hence the pursuit of the objectives of the Operational Programme Research and Innovation.  

In  this  context,  a  Working  Group  for  the  Management  of  Risks  under  the  Operational  Programme  Research  and  Innovation  (the 
‘working group’) has been set up to identify potential risks, including the risk of fraud, to minimise the likelihood that such risks will 
arise, or to mitigate the impact thereof. The working group is responsible for translating risk assessment results into appropriate action 
plans  for  the  introduction  of  effective  and  proportionate  measures  to  eliminate  the  effects  of  a  risk;  it  is  also  responsible  for  running 
checks on those action plans. 

In accordance with the National Strategy for the Protection of the EU’s Financial Interests in the Slovak Republic, as amended, there are 
plans – under the Operational Programme Research and Innovation (in relevant cases) – to make use of ARACHNE, the data mining and 
analysis tool, to identify projects that might be prone to the risk of fraud, a conflict of interest, or irregularities. 

Ministry of Labour, Social Affairs and Family: A Working Group for the Management of Risks under the Operational Programme 
Human Resources has been set up for the Operational Programme Human Resources in the 2014-2020 programming period. In addition, 
Procedures  for  the  Management  of  Risks  under  the  Operational  Programme  Human  Resources  have  been  drawn  up,  along  with  a 
Comprehensive Risk Catalogue – this is the output of the initial stage of Operational Programme Human Resources risk management 
(risk identification). In the second stage of risk management, all of the risks in this list are analysed and evaluated so that it is possible to 
determine  how  to  proceed  and  to  compile  a  Catalogue  of  Selected  Risks.  Subsequently,  existing  control  mechanisms  are  defined, 

421 

 
 
measures are proposed, and risks and the measures taken are monitored. 

Ministry  of  the  Environment:  In  accordance  with  Article 125(4)(c)  and  Annex  XIII,  paragraph  2,  of  the  General  Regulation,  and 
further to the experience gained and lessons learned in the 2007-2013 programming period, a systematic approach has been introduced 
under  the  Operational  Programme  Environmental  Quality  for  the  identification,  evaluation,  management  and  monitoring  of  risks  that 
could  adversely  affect  implementation  and,  ultimately,  the  pursuit  of  the  objectives  of  the  Operational  Programme  Environmental 
Quality.  The  risk  management  system  under  the  Operational  Programme  Environmental  Quality  is  used  as  an  early  warning  system, 
providing information on any disproportionate risk and suspect circumstances pointing to irregularities, and therefore initiates activities 
to minimise the risk identified. A fundamental feature of risk management is the exchange of information and open communication. Risk 
management is a systematic process carried out for the Operational Programme Environmental Quality by the Working Group for the 
Management of Risks under the Operational Programme Environmental Quality. The identification of potential risks is not limited solely 
to  members  of  the  Working  Group  for  the  Management  of  Risks  under  the  Operational  Programme  Environmental  Quality.  Any 
employee may identify a potential risk. In relevant cases, ARACHNE, the data mining and analysis tool, may also be used in accordance 
with the National Strategy for the Protection of the EU’s Financial Interests in the Slovak Republic, as amended, to identify projects that 
might be prone to the risk of fraud, a conflict of interest, or irregularities.  

Central coordination body: We are planning to advocate the more widespread use of simplified cost reporting. 

Ministry  of  Agriculture  and  Rural  Development:  In  the  new  programming  period,  the  managing  authority  for  the  ROP  and  the 
Operational Programme Bratislava Region, and where appropriate the IROP, will manage risks in accordance with Article 125(4)(c) of 
the General Regulation. This is a means for the managing authority to prevent or eliminate risks, fraud and the resulting fallout. Risk 
management in accordance with Article 125(4)(c) of the General Regulation. This is a means for the managing authority to prevent or 
eliminate risks, fraud and the resulting fallout. 

Question 1.3.2. 

Yes. 

Ministry  of  Labour,  Social  Affairs  and  Family:  Under  the  Operational  Programme  Employment  and  Social  Inclusion,  80 %  of  the 
allocation was channelled into national projects applying various forms of simplified expenditure reporting. The remaining 20 % of the 
allocation  was  channelled  into  demand-driven  projects  without  any  form  of  simplified  expenditure  reporting.  Audits  and  checks 
conducted on the Operational Programme Employment and Social Inclusion, whether in the form of government audits or Commission 
and  ECA  audits,  showed  that  80 %  of  all  areas  were  identified  in  the  20 %  portion  of  the  allocation,  i.e.  in  demand-driven  projects, 
which can be linked to the actual reporting of expenditure. 

Relationship 
between  the  basis 
for  payment  and 
levels  of  error  in 
the  major  EU 
spending 
areas 
(common 
agricultural 
policy, 
regional 
and  urban  policy, 
employment, 
social  affairs  and 

422 

 
 
 
inclusion). 

Question 2.1.1. 

Links  between  EU 
the 
in 
priorities 
the 
of 
context 
Europe 2020 
strategy,  including 
Horizon 2020,  and 
national priorities. 

Ministry of Education, Science, Research and Sport: As the EU’s cohesion policy for the 2014-2020 period has been conceived as a 
results-driven policy in order to contribute to the pursuit of the Europe 2020 agenda, including the Horizon 2020 programme, in 2014 an 
ex-ante evaluation was conducted of the Operational Programme Human Resources 2014-2020 with a view to ensuring the high-quality 
set-up of the operational programme so that it could become an effective means of contributing to objectives of the European Union’s 
strategy  for  smart,  sustainable  and  inclusive  growth,  especially  by  pursuing  national  targets  set  out  in  the  Europe  2020  agenda  for 
employment, social inclusion and education. 

The  final  report  on  that  ex-ante  evaluation  observed  that  the  strategy  followed  by  the  Operational  Programme  Human  Resources  is 
drawn  from  the  National  Reform  Programme,  which  defines  measures  to  strengthen  Slovakia’s  economic  growth  and  employment. 
These  measures  contribute  to  the  fulfilment  of  national  targets  in  keeping  with  the  Europe  2020  agenda  in  the  fields  of  education, 
employment  and  social  inclusion,  and  the  Operational  Programme  Human  Resources  clearly  and  comprehensibly  formulates  its  own 
intervention logic and is able to prove its contribution to the Europe 2020 agenda. The performance measuring system is discussed in 
part 2.2.4. 

Ministry  of  Labour,  Social  Affairs  and  Family:  Slovakia  and  the  Commission  have  adopted  a  Partnership  agreement  drawing  on 
national priorities (e.g. national action plans) and EU priorities (Europe 2020, Horizon 2020). The accent on pursuing its strategy lies in 
the selection of priority areas. Individual priorities are periodically monitored nationally (e.g. the National Reform Programme). As for 
operational  programmes,  measurable  indicators  are  set  for  each  objective  and  their  performance  is  monitored  on  an  ongoing  basis. 
Performance  indicators  are  also  set,  the  fulfilment  of  which  is  mandatory.  If  they  are  not  fulfilled,  the  Member  State  is  penalised  by 
having  its  allocation  of  EU  financial  resources  reduced.  If  these  indicators  are  exceeded,  the  allocation  may  be  increased  from  the 
performance reserve. 

Ministry  of  the  Environment:  Under  the  Operational  Programme  Environmental  Quality,  there  is  a  direct  link  between  the 
implementation of the programme’s performance framework and the implementation of the Europe 2020 agenda, especially as regards 
energy  efficiency  and  increases  in  the  share  of  energy  generated  from  RES.  The  pursuit  of  energy-related  objectives,  defined  in  the 
Europe  2020  targets,  benefits  from  the  synergy  of  national  support,  in  particular  by  means  of  legislation  promoting  the 
construction/reconstruction of new energy sources and favouring certain energy-related measures. 

Central coordination body: Slovakia’s national priorities are concentrated in a basic national document on the Europe 2020 agenda – 
the National Reform Programme, closely linked to the Stability Programme, which has been prepared by the Ministry of Finance as the 
national Europe 2020 co-coordinator. The National Reform Programme also sets out basic measures for the forthcoming period, and in 
doing  so  respects  in  particular  European  and  other  national  objectives  under  the  agenda,  the  conclusions  of  the  European  Council, 
Council  recommendations,  etc.  The  delimitation  of  a  section  of  the  central  coordination  body  to  the  new  Office  of  the  Deputy  Prime 
Minister of the Slovak Republic for Investments and Informatisation also saw the delimitation of the role of the national Europe 2020 co-
coordinator. Since its inception in 2007, it has sought in particular to project strategic objectives in the operational programmes of the 
Structural  Funds  and  the  Cohesion  Fund/ESIF,  and  has  contributed  to  the  evaluation  of  this  contribution  in  individual  operational 
programmes and systemic documents. Methodology for the evaluation of the synergic effects of the ESIF in the context of the Europe 

423 

 
 
Question 2.1.2. 

to 
synergies 

Measures 
pursue 
and 
complementarities 
ESI 
between 
Funds 
and 
national 
programmes . 

2020 agenda is being prepared externally. 

Ministry of Education, Science, Research and Sport: Synergy and complementarity with EU instruments and policies is described by 
the  Operational  Programme  Human  Resources  in  in  Chapter  1,  Strategic  Part,  Part  1.1,  Strategy  for  the  Operational  Programme’s 
contribution  to  the  EU  strategy  to  ensure  smart,  sustainable  and  inclusive  growth  and  to  achieve  economic,  social  and  territorial 
cohesion. 

The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister of the Slovak Republic for Investments and Informatisation has published Guidance Note No 3 
for  all  stakeholders  to  ensure  the  coordination  of  synergic  effects  and  complementarity  between  ESIF  and  other  EU  and  national  aid 
instruments. 

Ministry of Labour, Social Affairs and Family: Under each operational programme, coordination procedures have been defined (e.g. 
working groups, commissions, committees, etc.) in order to coordinate aid for the various programmes, including national programmes. 
The links are defined in the chapter of the Operational Programme Human Resources entitled ‘Coordination between funds, the EAFRD, 
the EMFF, and other Union and national financial instruments, such as the EIB’. The strategy of the operational programmes is derived 
from national action plans, which are regularly summarised. 

Central  coordination  body:  The  central  coordination  body  has  prepared  and  regularly  updates  Guidance  Note  No 11  for  the 
coordination  and  safeguarding  of  synergic  effects  between  the  ESIF  and  other  EU  and  national  aid  instruments,  which,  among  other 
things,  defines  specific  synergies  and  complementarity  as  a  basic  grouping,  which  is  modified  as  and  when  required.  The  Working 
Commission for the Coordination and Safeguarding of Synergic Effects between the ESIF and Other EU and National Aid Instruments 
was subsequently set up within the remit of the Prime Minister responsible for investments. Its members are all managing authorities of 
ESIF operational programmes and the representatives of other EU and national instruments. The working commission’s basic role is to 
review  and  assess  the  consistency  of  data  on  synergies  and  complementarity  identified  for  individual  calls/invitations  within  the 
framework of call/invitation timetables, the interconnection of individual interventions between the various ESIF programmes, and links 
to  other  financial  aid  instruments.  Each  managing  authority  of  an  ESIF  operational  programme  is  required,  in  October,  to  send  the 
timetables of calls and invitations for the next year along with a specification of the synergies consulted in advance with the programmes 
in question. The commission’s secretariat distributes draft timetables to all members for their comments, arranges for their harmonisation 
and  submits  them  to  the  commission  for  approval.  Changes  to  the  timetable  or  synergies  during  the  year  must  be  submitted  by  the 
managing  authority  to  the  commission  for  approval.  Information  must  be  published  on  the  managing  authorities’  websites.  It  is  also 
published by the central coordination body (http://www.partnerskadohoda.gov.sk/273-sk/koordinacia-synergii-a-komplementarit-medzi-
esif-a-ostatnymi-nastrojmi-podpory-eu-a-sr/). 

Question 2.2.1. 

Performance 
measurement 
system  to  link  EU 
measures, 

Ministry  of  Education,  Science,  Research  and  Sport:  A  key  system  for  measuring  performance  is  the  correct  and  quality 
configuration  of  a  system  of  measurable  indicators  under  the  Operational  Programme  Human  Resources  so  that  it  is  able  to  secure 
optimal data for the evaluation of compliance with the objectives of the Operational Programme Human Resources and its contribution 
to the pursuit of the Europe 2020 agenda, the Partnership Agreement and other relevant strategy documents. The proposed measurable 
indicators (both common and specific ESF indicators + micro data on project participants) are clear, relevant, measurable, statistically 

424 

 
 
or 
to  EU 

operations 
projects 
priorities/Europe 
2020 
and targets. 

objectives 

valid, reliable and appropriate in the Operational Programme Human Resources.  

Result indicators, output indicators and milestones are defined for each investment priority. The performance framework has been set to 
reflect and support the results-driven focus of the Operational Programme Human Resources. 

Ministry of Labour, Social Affairs and Family: At the level of the Partnership Agreement and operational programmes, a performance 
framework  has  been  set  that  contains  mandatory  indicators.  If  they  are  not  fulfilled,  the  Member  State  is  penalised  by  having  its 
allocation  of  EU  financial  resources  reduced.  If  these  indicators  are  exceeded,  the  allocation  may  be  increased  from  the  performance 
reserve. Compliance with ex-ante conditionalities is also periodically evaluated to ensure the appropriateness of the system settings and 
EU  priorities.  In  addition  to  the  above,  compliance  with  measures  defined  in  recommendations  for  the  individual  countries  is 
summarised.  

Ministry of the Environment: At EU level, common indicators are used that have the same definition across all Member States. The 
performance frameworks of individual operational programmes are frequently linked to these common indicators. 

Central coordination body: In 2019, an ‘Assessment of the fulfilment of performance framework indicator milestones and analysis of 
the  possibilities  for  the  redistribution  of  the  performance  reserve’  will  be  conducted  to  assess  the  pursuit  of  performance  framework 
indicator milestones interlinked with the objectives of the Europe 2020 agenda. Further to an analysis of the operational programme’s 
absorption and performance capacity, the evaluation will be used to prepare a proposal for the redistribution of the performance reserve. 

Question 2.2.2. 

Framework for the 
of 
management 
in 
Funds 
ESI 
order  to  achieve  a 
result-oriented 
system  and  impact 
of EU projects. 

Ministry  of  Education,  Science,  Research  and  Sport:  Each  priority  axis  of the  Operational  Programme  Human  Resources  contains 
result  indicators  that  correspond  well  with  the  most  important  results  expected  for  the  individual  specific  objectives.  The  Operational 
Programme Human Resources includes Common Result Indicators, for which a target value has been set, and result indicators specific to 
the programme, consistent with the specific ESF objectives for all priority axes (by investment priority and regional category). These 
measurable indicators are periodically reported by means of annual reports on programme implementation for individual years. Logical 
ties between output indicators, result indicators and long-term result indicators are sufficient, so it is likely that, if the target values of the 
output indicators are achieved, interventions will contribute to the fulfilment of result indicators’ target values. 

Ministry of the Environment: An efficient system leveraging, in particular, common EU indicators. Measurable programme indicators 
are  aggregated  from  measurable  project  indicators,  which  are  appropriately  structured  for  each  project.  Projects  are  approved  and 
favoured further to the fulfilment of these ‘key’ measurable indicators. Where ESIF-supported projects do not contribute to the required 
fulfilment of relevant measurable indicators, those projects are subject to a penalty mechanism aimed at preserving ESIF resources for 
other projects making a bigger contribution. 

Question 2.2.3. 

Yes. 

Member 
State 
actions  to  define 
or  improve  result 
indicators  at  EU 

Ministry of Education, Science, Research and Sport: See the reply in Part 2.2.2. 
Ministry of Labour, Social Affairs and Family: The penalty system adopted. 
Ministry  of  the  Environment:  The  compulsory  fulfilment  of  ‘key’  measurable  indicators  under  pain  of  a  financial  penalty  (see  the 
description described in paragraph 2.2.2). 

425 

 
 
project level. 

Central coordination body: Each managing authority is bound by a performance framework, which it seeks to achieve. 

Question 2.2.4. 

Performance 
measurement 
system  to  monitor 
the 
achievement 
objectives  at  EU 
measure, 
or 
operations 
project  level  and 
to  monitor 
the 
output  and  result 
indicators  at  EU 
measure, 
operations 
project level. 

or 

Ministry  of  Education,  Science,  Research  and  Sport:  The  measurement  of  performance  in  order  to  monitor  the  fulfilment  of  the 
objectives pursued by a measure, activities or EU project, and the  measurement of performance in order  to monitor output and result 
indicators under a measure, activities or EU project, are carried out in numerous ways, such as: 

-  the  Operational  Programme  Human  Resources  monitoring  committee,  the  National  Monitoring  Committee,  or  the  Commission  for 
Priority Axis 1 of the Operational Programme Human Resources; 

- a periodic evaluation of the performance framework settings and the related performance reserve; 

-  the  documentation  drawn  up:  Report  on  ESIF  Implementation;  Progress  Report;  Annual/Final  Report  on  the  Implementation  of  the 
Operational Programme Human Resources; Information on the Implementation of the Operational Programme Human Resources, etc.; 

-  the  regular  production  and  summary  of  an  Operational  Programme  Implementation  Outlook  Plan,  including  a  timetable  of  calls,  a 
contracting plan, an uptake plan, a plan for the pursuit of milestones and the aims of the performance framework, etc.; 

-  an  evaluation  of  progress  and  the  pursuit  of  set  objectives  under  the  individual  priority  axes  of  the  Operational  Programme  Human 
Resources in the form of evaluation reports. 

Project monitoring will be carried out during project implementation, upon completion of project implementation, and during the project 
sustainability  period,  by  way  of  checks  on  the  monitoring  reports  submitted  (the  annual  monitoring  report,  final  monitoring  report, 
follow-up  monitoring  report  +  supplementary  information  on  payment  claims).  Projects  are  monitored  during  implementation  for  the 
thorough and periodic tracking of progress (of the state) of implementation of project activities and compliance with other obligations 
incumbent on the beneficiary under the Grant Agreement. Summarised project monitoring outputs form the basis for the preparation of 
annual  reports  and  the  final  report  on  the  implementation  of  the  operational  programme.  The  beneficiary  will  be  bound  by  the  Grant 
Agreement to fulfil and maintain measurable indicators. If they are not fulfilled, the penalty mechanism will be applied. (For example, 
the master plan or the binding plan for the operational programme.) 

Ministry  of  Labour,  Social  Affairs  and  Family:  The  implementation  of  the  operational  programme  is  monitored  via  ITMS 2014+. 
This  system  tracks  the  initial  planning  of  results,  and  the  monitoring  and  evaluation  thereof,  and  if  the  indicators  are  not  fulfilled  a 
national penalty mechanism has been drawn up. Each project under implementation is monitored annually by way of a monitoring report 
(electronically) and in relation to each payment claim. 

Central coordination body: Every year, the managing authority draws up a binding plan which, besides planned contracting and uptake 
values, contains the performance framework indicators. The fulfilment of the values will be continuously monitored and, every half-year, 
will be evaluated by the central coordination body. 

Question 3.1.1. 

Yes. 

Framework  or  a 

Ministry of the Environment: In ECA audits in which findings are made, the Ministry of the Environment adopts measures in keeping 
with the ECA’s recommendations. In the overviews forming  part  of the underlying documentation for other bodies, such as the audit 

426 

 
 
authority, the certifying authority, etc., information is also provided on the performance of the measures adopted, i.e. it would be fair to 
say that, in this way, the progress achieved in the implementation of recommendations is tracked. However, we do not submit a specific 
report on this. 

Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development: Yes, via the Error Rate Action Plan. 

for 

system 
the 
follow-up of ECA's 
recommendations 
addressed 
to 
Member  States  in 
annual 
Court's 
special 
and 
reports. 
and 
Monitoring 
reporting 
on 
progress  achieved 
towards 
to 
implementation  of 
Court's 
recommendations 

427 

 
 
 
 
 
Slovenia 

Question 1.1.1 

Main  root  causes 
in  the  major  EU 
areas 
spending 
(common 
agricultural 
policy, 
regional 
and  urban  policy, 
employment, 
social  affairs  and 
inclusion)  for  the 
persisting 
risks 
and errors pointed 
out by the ECA. 

NB: In order to develop the replies, the following non-exhaustive list of examples for 
root causes of legality and regularity errors in EU expenditure may be considered 

Not 
relevant 

Relevant 
in some 
respect 

Relevant 
in most 
respect 

Fully 
relevant 

  number and complexity of rules and gold-plating 

 

incorrect transposition of applicable EU legislation into national laws 

 

failure to observe the legal and procedural requirements stemming from 
EU and national legislation and rules 

  sufficient knowledge in applying procurement rules or State aid rules or 
other  applicable  EU  legislation  and  rules  (including  conditions  and 
eligibility  criteria  for  the  rural  development  measures,  simplified  cost 
options,  reasonableness  of  costs,  result-oriented  agri-environment 
payments) 

  complex eligibility rule 

428 

MF-
CA 

MDDSZ 

MDDSZ 

MF-
CA 

SVRK 

SVRK 

MKGP 

MF-CA 

 SVRK 

MKGP 

MKGP 

MF-CA 

MDDSZ 

SVRK 

MKGP 

MDDSZ 

 SVRK 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
    
          
 
 
 
     
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  weaknesses  in  the  set  of  eligibility  rules  that  may  lead  to  potential  for 

circumventing them 

 

insufficient quality and up-date of the Land Parcel Identification System 
(LPIS) 

  mistakes in the aid applications 

  continued risks of misinterpretation of what is the eligible area for the 

basic payment scheme  

MKGP 

MDDSZ 

MKGP 

MKGP 

MDDSZ 

MKGP 

 

inefficient sanction mechanism for non-compliance or low sanction rate 
for non-compliance 

MDDSZ 

  need  of  raising  awareness,  targeted  training,  and,  development  and 
delivery  of  detailed  methodological  support  and  guidance  for  national 
and regional authorities and final beneficiaries 

429 

MKGP 

MF-CA 

MDDSZ 

MF-
CA 

SVRK 

SVRK 

MF-
CA 

SVRK 

MKGP 

 SVRK 

MKGP 

MF-
CA 

MF-
CA 

 
 
 
          
      
   
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
   
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
         
 
 
         
 
  need of more or better resources and administrative capacity building 

MDDSZ 

  need  of  an  improved  quality  of  key  aspects  of  the  supervisory  and 
control  systems  (better  design  and/or  performance  of  administrative 
checks  and  on-the-spot  controls  and/or  increase  of  the  effectiveness  of 
the  work  carried  out  by  management  verifications,  audit  authorities, 
paying agencies and certification bodies) 

MKGP 

MDDSZ 

  better use of the information necessary to detect and correct available in 
the supporting documents, as well as at the level of the beneficiary or a 
national/regional body 

MDDSZ 

  sufficiently robust action plans developed to address both the causes of 
errors  and  the  weaknesses  in  the  management  and  control  systems 
and/or deficiencies in the EU spending 

MKGP 

 

insufficient  introduction  of  changes  by  new  legal  and/or  regulatory 
and/or procedural frameworks likely to have a significant impact on the 
causes of errors 

  need  of  more  initiatives  for  ensuring  a  genuine  simplification  for 

beneficiaries and programmes' implementation 

  knowledge and experience sharing, and dissemination of good practices 
improving  widespread 

level  on 

at  national  and/or  at  EU 
weaknesses/deficiencies/errors 

MDDSZ 

MKGP 

MF-CA 

 SVRK 

MF-CA 

MKGP 

 SVRK 

MF-CA 

 SVRK 

MF-
CA 

MDDSZ 

 SVRK 

MKGP 

MDDSZ 

        MF-
CA 

MDDSZ 

MDDSZ 

MKGP 

        MF-
CA 

 SVRK 

MKGP 

430 

 
 
      
 
 
    
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
          
 
Question 1.1.2. 

lessons 
Main 
while 
learned 
addressing 
the 
risks  and  errors 
EU 
the 
for 
spending. 

  expected  results  from  actions  that  will  not  always  be  evident  in  short-

 SVRK 

term 

MDDSZ 

MKGP 

MF-CA 

MF-
CA 

GODC  -  greater/frequenter  usage  of  POS  terminals  for  new  operations;  whereby  prior  determinism  is  to  be  fulfilled  (this  reduces 
eventual errors, referring to non-compliance with the EU rules and national legislation / national rules). 

MAFF 

A  very  important  action  within  the  period  of  2007-2013,  in  order  to  reduce  the  level  of  error  in  the  rural  development,  was  the 
implementation of an action plan for the reduction of error level. Activities were carried out at the level of the program itself, as well as 
at the level of preparation of applications forms and payment claims for the beneficiaries. In addition to the annual training program, 
which is to be performed before the subsidy campaign and is in accordance to rural development  measures, several targeted trainings 
(public  procurement,  local  action  groups)  were  implemented,  which  is  nowadays  reflected  in  a  significant  reduction  of  mistakes  in 
consumption of resources of the EAGF and the EAFRD.   

At MAFF we do not have much experience with the application of simplified cost from the programming period 2014 - 2020 itself, for 
we have only started with the implementation of the vast majority of the measures of the Rural Development Program RS 2014-2020 
(RDP 2014-2020) in 2016. However, we can confirm, that the introduction of simplified forms of costs; when considering measures (e.g. 
measure 6.1, which is intended for start-up aid for young farmers or measure 3.1, which is intended for the new integration in quality 
schemes),  delivers  the  simplification  in  terms  of  allocating  grants,  reducing  the  complexity  of  the  documentation  and  displaying  the 
eligibility of costs. For these reasons MAFF’s intention for 2017 is to examine further possibilities of simplifying the forms of costs also 
with the rest of measures within the Rural Development Program (RDP 2014-2020). With regular usage of simplified forms of costs we 
expect  to  achieve  further  reduction  of  the  error  level  and  concurrently  the  reduction  of  administrative  burdens  for  investors  and 
furthermore also for the paying agencies.  

MLFSA 

For to assure the effective treatment of risks and errors in consumption processes of EU funds, the well-qualified personnel on the side 
of the beneficiaries as well as on the side of the intermediate bodies, is essential or even crucial. All eventual mistakes will herewith be 
eliminated even before the application forms for the EC reimbursement are to be prepared. 

431 

 
 
          
         
 
 
Question 1.1.3. 

practices 
Good 
and  examples  of 
success  stories  in 
the 
of 
areas 
compliance  with 
EU  and  national 
eligibility 
rules, 
compliance  with 
EU  and  national 
public 
procurement 
legislation, 
and 
compliance  with 
State aid rules. 

GODC   
The usage of simplified forms of costs may be exposed as a general example of good practice in Slovenia. In most cases, but mainly in 
the ESF, the  combination  of only two  different forms of  costs is to be used:  a  standard  cost  per unit  for wages and a flat rate for all 
indirect costs. This system significantly simplifies the financial reporting process. As another example of good practice we  also could 
expose  few  other  projects,  concerning  the  eligible  expenditure  of  salaries  for  teachers  in  primary  and  secondary  schools.  Ministry, 
responsible for this area, has invented and issued a very exacting calculation of average monthly teacher’s earnings, also considering all 
extra associated costs. This calculation is in regular usage for all operations in the educational field. So there is no need to substantiate 
the methodology separately every time. 

MAFF 
Training  courses  and  workshops  for  potential  beneficiaries,  as  well  as  the  publication  of  most  frequent  irregularities  and  asserts  of 
regular education are all an important contribution to the correct consumption of the EU funds.  
The  implementation  of  simplified  forms  of  costs  may  be  exposed  as  an  example  of  good  practice  also  in  the  field  of  our  rural 
development. Within the sub-measure 3.1., which has been introduced for the new integration in quality schemes, MAFF implemented a 
flat-rate payment on the agricultural holding. The overall preparation of the documentation, which is required at the lodging of payment 
applications, is now simplified for the investors, since they will no longer have to demonstrate the costs by invoices and their supporting 
documents. The paying agency will verify the achievement of an outcome, which is to be presented in a form of a successfully obtained 
certificate, proving the actual inclusion into a quality scheme. There are two important types of checks to be performed when verifying 
the  eligibility  of  applications:  prescribed  checks  and  situ  checks,  both  are  to  be  carried  out  on-the-spot,  prior  to  the  approval  of  the 
applications. 
During the implementation of the Rural Development Program 2014-2020 and only after the first year of implementation of the endowed 
system  for  identifying  irregularities  and  fraud,  which  is  also  related  to  risk  analysis  for  irregularities  and  possible  fraud,  the  paying 
agency - the Agency of RS for Agricultural Markets and Rural Development (AAMRD), already has gained good experience with it. 
In the area of the EAGF - direct payments, a good practice could be presented in the form of introduction of geospatial form, which is to 
be found at the stage of registering the application for subsidy, and furthermore the incorporation of logical checks and cross checks, 
which are to be found already at the stage of introduction of applications. 

MLFSA 
The  implementation  of  simplified  forms  of  costs;  hereby  the  application  of  standard  costs  per  unit,  has  proven  to  be  an  appropriate 
sample of a good practice. The preparation of the methodology for the standard unit costs has been burdensome in its initial phases, but 
further implementation of these projects was significantly less administratively complex. Such simplification is also considerably easier 
to implement for beneficiaries. 

432 

 
 
Question 1.2.1. 

GODC 

Further  measures 
to 
the 
enhance 
effectiveness of the 
checks  carried  out 
declaring 
before 
or 
certifying 
expenditure  to  the 
Commission. 

More  education  in  the  field  of  management  checks,  public  contracts,  state  aid...and  more  checks  of  implementation  of  the  delegated 
tasks. 

MAFF 

In  the  context  of  the  Managing  Authority  of  RDP  2014-2020  and  in  the  context  of  technical  assistance  of  the  Rural  Development 
Program of RS, a PLAN OF EDUCATION AND TRAINING of civil servants has been adopted for the year 2016. Scopes of acquisition 
of knowledge as well as transformation procedures of knowledge and information are all defined in the Plan. Special attention is given to 
the  appropriate  training  of  civil  servants  in  particular  for  public  procurement,  state  aid,  realisation  of  the  audit  recommendations,  for 
verification, monitoring and evaluation. 

MF-CA (the Certification Authority) 

The implementation of additional checks (in accordance with art.126 of the EU Regulation/2013/1303) within their jurisdiction, that is 
additional  verification  of  the  eligibility  of  expenditure  ("desk  review')  and  additional  verification  on  the  ground.  To  carry  out  these 
checks  appropriately,  MF-CA  additionally  verifies  the  reality  and  the  correctness  of  the  request  for  payment,  correctness  of  its  legal 
basis, which jointly determines the execution of the operation and, in particular, verify the checks carried out by the intermediary bodies 
or by the managing authority.  

MLFSA has performed the needed risk analysis before carrying out the operations and correspondingly prepared additional measures to 
prevent errors. In some cases the unannounced visits to the beneficiaries have been carried out. These activities were performed in order 
to check the course of planned execution of activities, also in order to prevent pre-war funding; some of the individual beneficiaries have 
been examined for the costs, eligible under the ESF and eventually also under other sources of funding. 

Question 1.2.2. 

GODC - more checks on the spot (COS) 

MAFF  -  ex-post  controls  and  proper  transposition  of  results  of  these  checks  into  designs  of  the  risk  analyses  in  the  phase  of  sample 
preparation  for  the  on-the-spot  check  (before  confirming  the  expenditure)  and  in  individual  cases  in  the  phase  of  planning  of  rural 
development measures (eligibility conditions). 

MLFSA - In case of a fault, the MLFSA has requested from the beneficiaries/recipients the reimbursement of unduly received funding.   

Further  measures 
the 
enhance 
to 
of 
effectiveness 
actions 
to  detect 
and  correct  errors 
concerning 
expenditure, which 
previously 
was 
or 
declared 
the 
to 
certified 
Commission. 

433 

 
 
 
Question 1.3.1. 

GODC 

Risk  analysis  and 
estimated  level  of 
error  in  the  major 
EU spending areas 
(common 
agricultural 
policy, 
regional 
and  urban  policy, 
employment, 
social  affairs  and 
inclusion). 

The  risk  analysis  consists  of  risks,  which  appear  over  the  complete  circle;  from  the  application  phase,  through  the  execution  and 
payments to the final completion. A special attention is given to risks in the field of public contracts.  There are measures to reduce the 
risks planned to be performed in case risks appear.  

MAFF  

In  accordance  with  the  activities  of  the  action  plan  to  reduce  the  level  of  errors  in  the  rural  development  measures,  the  lack  of 
knowledge, considering requirements and conditions, which are to be met by the beneficiaries or by investors in the enforcement of the 
EAFRD, has been defined as the greatest risk of errors. Therefore the activities within the action plan have been directed into additional 
trainings  of  agricultural  consultants,  to  enable  them  full  qualification  of  completing  the  applications  in  the  application  phase  and  to 
qualify  them  for  providing  the  final  information  to  the  beneficiaries  by  using  all  available  means  of  transfers.  In  addition  to  these 
activities some additional changes were introduced in the implementation of the administrative checks. 

The register of risks (analysis of business assessments) is reviewed annually from the side of the paying agency. Considering results of 
the last check, the risks are, if necessary, newly estimated. 

In the allocation of aid from the EAGF the greatest risk is the non-updated records for verification of eligibility. With systematic annual 
updating of records of eligibility, this risk has been reduced significantly. 

By  the  determination  of  the  admissibility  of  payments  to  the  EAGF  and  the  EAFRD,  which  are  both  a  part  of  the  IACS  system,  a 
manageable  level  of  error  (between  1  and  2%)  was  recorded.  The  only  exceptions  were  the  agro-environmental  measures,  where  the 
defined conditions for entitlement are very complex. 

MLFSA 

At  the  level  of  the  Ministry,  responsible  for  the  disbursement  of  EU  funds,  we  keep  registers  of  all  identified  errors  within  the 
implementation phase of the operations. In accordance with the findings, we take all necessary actions on the system level to reduce the 
risk of irregularities.  

Question 1.3.2. 

Yes. 

Relationship 
between  the  basis 
for  payment  and 
levels  of  error  in 
the  major  EU 
areas 
spending 
(common 
agricultural 

GODC 

The single fault/irregularity results from wrong, inadequate or incorrect… "evidence", which is the basis for the payment of the funds. If 
the checks are not carried out properly, such irregularities cannot be identified and regularized in time. 

No. 

MLFSA 

The  evidences  for  the  disbursement  of  funds  are  clearly  defined  and  also  clearly  directed  into  a  process  of  simplifying  the  overall 

434 

 
 
procedure of charging costs. For the MLFSA this represents a simplification of the verification of the eligibility of costs. 

policy, 
regional 
and  urban  policy, 
employment, 
social  affairs  and 
inclusion). 

Question 2.1.1. 

GODC 

Links  between  EU 
the 
in 
priorities 
the 
of 
context 
Europe 2020 
strategy,  including 
Horizon 2020,  and 
national priorities. 

The practice within the preparation and implementation phase of the Slovenian Strategy Smart Specialisation - S4 (ex ante conditionality 
of TC1 Operational Program) or experience during the first year of implementation of this strategy shows, that the approach of the EC 
through  prior  conditionality  and  preparation  of  strategies  S3,  could  actually  be  an  effective  contribution  to  goals  of  increasing 
complementarities and coherence and goals of  improvement of coordination within the usage of funding instruments ESIF and Horizon 
2020. Slovenia uses S3 as a lever to guarantee the integrity of the supportive environment for its growth in competitiveness, innovation 
and entrepreneurship.  

MAFF 

On the basis of the analysis of the situation and the SWOT analysis, on the basis of the identified needs and in regard to specific national 
strategic  documents,  which  define  the  development  of  agriculture,  food  industry  and  forestry  by  2020,  and  all  in  all  by  taking  the 
Partnership Agreement between the Republic of Slovenia and the European Commission into consideration, Slovenia has defined 6 focal 
points of action: 

Accelerating processes of structural adjustment in agriculture and thereby creating of the needed conditions for increasing the 

1. 
productivity of Slovenian agriculture. 

More effective market organization of agriculture, strengthening of the agro-food chains, creating a greater visibility and quality 

2. 
of locally grown products. 

3. 
The  sustainable  exploitation  of  forests  and  increasing  of  the  added  value  of  the  wood  with  implementing  a  firmly  market 
integration in the field of forestry and along the forest-wood chain, also increasing the competitiveness in the field of forestry and non-
industrial processing of wood. 

Promotion of different agricultural practices, which have a favourable influence on the conservation of natural resources and on 

4. 
the adaptation to climate changes. 

Green jobs and a coherent and sustainable rural development, which is based on the development of endogenous potential of the 

5. 
local environment. 

The  transfer  of  knowledge  and  innovation,  as  well  as  taking  care  of  the  environment  and  climate  changes,  is  all  important 

6. 
horizontal objectives, being pursued by the five priority action areas.  

With  all  hereby  stated  focal  points  of  action  we  follow  the  Strategy  Europe  2020  objectives,  recommendations  of  the  European 

435 

 
 
 
Commission, selected thematic objectives of the Partnership Agreement and the six priorities set out from Article 5 of the Regulation 
1305/2013/EU. 

MLFSA 

In  the  section,  which  relates  to  the  area  of  employment  rates  and  prolonging  working  activity,  the  MLFSA  formed  few  programs  for 
employability, especially for the elderly, less educated and long-term unemployed persons. Furthermore several new measures for active 
and healthy senescence are being prepared. 

Question 2.1.2. 

GODC  

to 
synergies 

Measures 
pursue 
and 
complementarities 
ESI 
between 
Funds 
and 
national 
programmes . 

With the establishment of a robust governance S4 (including coordination unit S4 on GODC and working group of state secretaries) we 
ensure consistency of policies and instruments that are relevant for the S4, along with the creation of strategic development- innovation 
partnerships (SDIP), however, in all domains of S4 we ensure a mechanism for coherent integration of all Slovenian priority tasks within 
the working programs on all individual pillars of Horizon 2020 in the period of 2017-2020. 

MAFF 

Synergies between ESI funds in enforcement actions, which have actually been co-financed from the side of EAFRD, are being followed 
and registered in the programming level (the partnership agreement and the previous conditionality are taken into account in  the rural 
development program) and in the implementation level (inter-ministerial coordination of national provisions). It is particularly important 
to  add,  that  the  Monitoring  Committee  of  the  rural  development  program  consists  of  all  ESI  funds  that  are  actively  involved  in  the 
formulation of all operations, co-financed by the EAFRD. A concrete synergy in the period of 2014-2020 is being put in practice in the 
context of implementation of the CLLD tool. 

The  coordination  with  the  Departmental  Ministry,  regarding  the  contents  of  measures,  also  including  agro-environmental  and  climate 
payments, is always hard and sets an important level for achieving synergies. 

MLFSA 

Guidelines for the Active employment policy and the Plan of implementing measures are prepared and confirmed. 

Question 2.2.1. 

GODC 

Performance 
measurement 
system  to  link  EU 
measures, 
operations 
projects 
priorities/Europe 

or 
to  EU 

Operations  to  be  carried  out  within  the  framework  of  OP  must  contain  the  objectives  that  are  consistent  with  OP  within  a  specific 
objective. As a general rule, only direct indicators from OP can be used, however, in certain cases or exceptionally the operation, which 
doesn’t have the OP indicator, may be confirmed.   In such exceptional  cases another meaningful indicator;  but always considering at 
least one output and one result, is requested. 

MAFF 

The advisability of business on the MAFF and the Agency of RS for Agricultural Markets and Rural Development is being supported by 
the Catalogue of costs and the maximum attributed values for all investment measures in rural development. The usage of this Catalogue 

436 

 
 
2020 
and targets. 

objectives 

provides a more rational consumption of EU funds and much greater transparency in the allocation of EAFRD funds, and at the same 
time  also  the  simplification  in  the  recognition  of  co-financed  costs.  The  important  contribution  of  the  Catalogue  into  expedience  of 
managing the EAFRD assets, is defining the upper value of the eligible costs in relation to the prices on the market. The Catalogue offers 
a support in the field of investment planning.  

MLFSA 

Within the creating  and certification process of the Operational  Program of the European Cohesion Policy 2014-2020, measures  were 
directed into achieving the stated objectives of both; the objectives of the country, as well as the priorities of the EU and the Europe 2020 
strategy. 

Question 2.2.2. 

GODC 

Framework for the 
of 
management 
ESI 
in 
Funds 
order  to  achieve  a 
result-oriented 
system  and  impact 
of EU projects. 

A special performance framework has been approved in the context of the OP. This framework is given our special attention - to reach 
the values of the proposed indicators (though it is more about the output indicators, which still do not indicate the results). Otherwise it is 
required, both; at the tender level as well as at the operational level, to choose at least one output and result indicator; through which the 
performance measurements will be performed. Indicators are mostly directly taken and used from the OP. 

MAFF 

When  preparing  the  implementing  regulations  for  the  investment  measures  of  RDP  2014-2020  in  Slovenia,  we  have  more  than  ever 
strived towards directing the investor into achieving measurable results. Investors, who carry out investments in agricultural holdings, 
are obliged to meet at least 80 % of the production volume, as scheduled in the business plan, no later than within 36 months from the 
date  of  the  last  disbursement  of  funds.  The  applicant  is  obliged  to  adequately  report  about  the  fulfilment  of  this  obligation,  but  the 
fulfilment of key requirements and all objectives, concerning the plan, are all checked through official records. If the production volume 
is not accomplished, a part of the funds or all of the funds disbursed will be withdrawn from the beneficiary.  

Monitoring and evaluation system in the context of Rural Development Program 2014-2020 is based upon the evaluation plan, which 
provides the display of progress and the assessment of impact and effectiveness of implementation of the rural development policy in the 
RS.  

There  are  several  impact  indicators  and  indicators  to  measure  the  effectiveness  of  steps,  defined  to  monitor  and  to  evaluate  the  RDP 
2014-2020. Secondary effects of individual measures are also being evaluated.  

Question 2.2.3. 

No. 

Member 

State 

GODC 

437 

 
 
 
actions  to  define 
or  improve  result 
indicators  at  EU 
project level. 

In the context of the OP, the system of indicators, confirmed by the EK, and which we follow, has been established. Indicators within the 
framework of the performance are also involved. There is no need for changing for the time being, changes can be simultaneously added 
and defined if needed. 

MAFF  

Indicators  for  the  RDP  2014-2020  are  set  out  in  the  framework  of  the  System  of  the  common  monitoring  and  evaluation  (CMES). 
Additional national indicators are also defined. The beneficiaries are under an obligation to report about the evaluation of  the achieved 
results and effects. More detailed provisions on the reporting of the beneficiaries are defined in the invitations to public tender.  

Yes. 

MLFSA 

In  cooperation  with  the  managing  authority  an  action  plan  had  been  established  in  the  form  of  an  OP  for  the  implementation  of  the 
European  Cohesion  Policy  2014-2020.  This  plan  clearly  identifies  all  measures  that  will  contribute  to  achievement  of  the  planned 
indicators. 

Question 2.2.4. 

GODC 

Performance 
measurement 
system  to  monitor 
the 
achievement 
objectives  at  EU 
measure, 
operations 
or 
project  level  and 
to  monitor 
the 
output  and  result 
indicators  at  EU 
measure, 
operations 
project level. 

or 

Every  single  operation  (measure  or  tender)  must  have  the  indicators  defined  before  the  confirmation.  When  the  operation  (tender)  is 
confirmed, it is to be copied into the monitoring system. The beneficiaries are obliged to report about indicators (at least) once a year. 
The indicators are accrued onto higher levels and are to be reported in the annual reports. 

MAFF 

Every single operation (measure or tender) must have the indicators defined in the application form. All indicators have to be reported in 
the annual reports. The results of evaluations, gained on the basis of the usage and impact of indicators, will furthermore help to improve 
the quality, efficiency and effectiveness of implementation of the Rural Development Program 2014-2020. 

For the monitoring and evaluation of the RDP 2014-2020 there are indicators of impact and output indicators defined in order to measure 
the effectiveness of the measures. Secondary effects of individual measures are also being evaluated.  

The managing authority for the Rural Development Program of RS 2014 - 2020, prepares an analysis of the financial implementation of 
the RDP 2014-2020 three times a year. Therewith the attainment of the objectives of the program and the achievement of the framework 
of the performance as well as the disbursement forecast until 2018 are analysed in detail.  

MLFSA 

In order to be able to monitor the achievement of the objective, the beneficiaries are committed to prepare and issue their half-yearly and 
annual reports, also the appropriateness of the measures and activities is checked through the evaluation of performed operations. 

Question 3.1.1. 

Yes. 

438 

 
 
for 

Framework  or  a 
system 
the 
follow-up of ECA's 
recommendations 
addressed 
to 
Member  States  in 
annual 
Court's 
and 
special 
reports. 
Monitoring 
and 
on 
reporting 
progress  achieved 
towards 
to 
implementation  of 
Court's 
recommendations 

GODC 

The managing authority (MA) must have an overview of all the measures and recommendations, which have been identified and issued 
by the audit authorities including two auditor's organs of EC and ECA. The MA has so far (FP 2007-2013) kept a register of all of the 
executed  audits  and  thereby  given  audit  measures  and  recommendations.  For  the  audits  and  audit  events,  performed  by  ECA,  and 
thereby issued recommendations - depending on the content of the recommendation alone  - an action plan for the realisation of those 
recommendations has been prepared. This was prepared by the MA in cooperation with EC, including its additional recommendations 
and guidelines for the realisation of the ECA findings. MA has already made reports about these kinds of measures in the annual reports 
of  operational  programs,  as  well  as  on  the  meetings  of  the  monitoring  committees.  FP  14-20  has  the  application  available  in  the 
information  system,  which  enables  the  monitoring  of  audit  measures  and  recommendations,  as  well  as  the  monitoring  of  their 
implementation, which is to be supported by all the documents or audit tracks, proving or clarify the current status of the implementation 
of  individual  recommendations  and  given  measures.  Therewith  all  bodies,  involved  in  the  implementation  phase  of  the  European 
Cohesion Policy, will have an overview of all the given measures and recommendations, as well as of all already executed measures. 
This will contribute to the improvement of all further actions, which are performed on the basis of recommendations, and will contribute 
to  improvement  of  reporting  system,  referring  to  reporting  on  remedial  measures.  This  also  will  enable  the  monitoring  of  unrealized 
recommendations and correspondingly will help to “warn” the intermediary bodies and others in order to appeal to the implementation 
and  fulfilment  of  the  European  Cohesion  Policy.  MA  wishes  to  improve  the  examination  system  of  the  fulfilment  of  the  audit 
recommendations and implemented measures. 

MAFF 

At the Agency of RS for Agricultural Markets and Rural Development (AAMRD), at the paying agency for EAGF and EAFRD funds, at 
intermediary body, as well as at the authority for certification for EMFF support fund, a special system for the centralised monitoring of 
the  implementation  of  all  audit  recommendations,  which  are  from  the  side  of  the  internal  and  external  audit  bodies  addressed  to  the 
AAMRD Agency and the MAFF, has been established. All audit findings and recommendations are entered in the intranet application 
"FOLLOW UP” immediately upon their receipt. On the basis of action plans and recommendations, the actual status of fulfilment of the 
audit recommendations is being monitored. A responsible member or an operator is defined for each single recommendation. He alone is 
obliged to enter the action plan, including a description of the necessary changes and including the deadline for implementation of the 
stated recommendation, into the system. After all stated activities have been implemented, the operator enters the final report, whereby 
he  must provide an explanation and evidence of what has been completed or why some of the actions (still) haven’t been completed. 
Action plans and final reports are finally confirmed and certified by the internal auditor of AAMRD. An internal department, responsible 
for  internal  audit,  and  Department  for  EU  Affairs  at  the  AAMRD  Agency,  are  both  in  charge  of  monitoring  of  the  implemented 
recommendations. The condition of the fulfilment is regularly monitored by the MAFF - the competent authority for the accreditation of 
paying agencies. The process of monitoring recommendations is documented and there is an adequate audit trail available - it is built in 
that way, that any auditor can independently assesses about the closure of recommendations. Therewith the storage of all audit reports in 
one place is enabled and correspondingly also a better control over monitoring processes of the implementation of the recommendations 
is obtained. 

439 

 
 
MLFSA 

In  the  event  of  conclusions  and  recommendations,  the  MLFSA  prepares  a  response  report,  describing  all  measures  to  pursuance  of 
recommendations and rectification of errors. 

440 

 
 
 
 
 
Spain 

Question 1.1.1 

ERDF and COHESION 

Main  root  causes 
in  the  major  EU 
areas 
spending 
(common 
agricultural 
policy, 
regional 
and  urban  policy, 
employment, 
social  affairs  and 
inclusion)  for  the 
persisting 
risks 
and errors pointed 
out by the ECA. 

NB: In order to develop the replies, the following non-exhaustive list of examples for 
root causes of legality and regularity errors in EU expenditure may be considered 

Not 
relevant 

Relevant 
in some 
respect 

Relevant 
in most 
respect 

Fully 
relevant 

  number and complexity of rules and gold-plating 

 

incorrect transposition of applicable EU legislation into national laws 

 

failure to observe the legal and procedural requirements stemming from 
EU and national legislation and rules 

  sufficient knowledge in applying procurement rules or State aid rules or 
other  applicable  EU  legislation  and  rules  (including  conditions  and 
eligibility  criteria  for  the  rural  development  measures,  simplified  cost 
options,  reasonableness  of  costs,  result-oriented  agri-environment 
payments) 

  complex eligibility rule 

  weaknesses  in  the  set  of  eligibility  rules  that  may  lead  to  potential  for 

circumventing them 

 

insufficient quality and up-date of the Land Parcel Identification System 
(LPIS) 

  mistakes in the aid applications 

  continued risks of misinterpretation of what is the eligible area for the 

basic payment scheme  

441 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

inefficient sanction mechanism for non-compliance or low sanction rate 
for non-compliance 

  need  of  raising  awareness,  targeted  training,  and,  development  and 
delivery  of  detailed  methodological  support  and  guidance  for  national 
and regional authorities and final beneficiaries 

  need of more or better resources and administrative capacity building 

  need  of  an  improved  quality  of  key  aspects  of  the  supervisory  and 
control  systems  (better  design  and/or  performance  of  administrative 
checks  and  on-the-spot  controls  and/or  increase  of  the  effectiveness  of 
the  work  carried  out  by  management  verifications,  audit  authorities, 
paying agencies and certification bodies) 

  better use of the information necessary to detect and correct available in 
the supporting documents, as well as at the level of the beneficiary or a 
national/regional body 

  sufficiently robust action plans developed to address both the causes of 
errors  and  the  weaknesses  in  the  management  and  control  systems 
and/or deficiencies in the EU spending 

 

insufficient  introduction  of  changes  by  new  legal  and/or  regulatory 
and/or procedural frameworks likely to have a significant impact on the 
causes of errors 

  need  of  more  initiatives  for  ensuring  a  genuine  simplification  for 

beneficiaries and programmes' implementation 

  knowledge and experience sharing, and dissemination of good practices 
improving  widespread 

at  national  and/or  at  EU 

level  on 

442 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
weaknesses/deficiencies/errors 

  expected  results  from  actions  that  will  not  always  be  evident  in  short-

term 

EAGF 

NB: In order to develop the replies, the following non-exhaustive list of examples for 
root causes of legality and regularity errors in EU expenditure may be considered 

Not 
relevant 

Relevant 
in some 
respect 

Relevant 
in most 
respect 

Fully 
relevant 

  number and complexity of rules and gold-plating 

 

incorrect transposition of applicable EU legislation into national laws 

 

failure to observe the legal and procedural requirements stemming from 
EU and national legislation and rules 

  sufficient knowledge in applying procurement rules or State aid rules or 
other  applicable  EU  legislation  and  rules  (including  conditions  and 
eligibility  criteria  for  the  rural  development  measures,  simplified  cost 
options,  reasonableness  of  costs,  result-oriented  agri-environment 
payments) 

  complex eligibility rule 

  weaknesses  in  the  set  of  eligibility  rules  that  may  lead  to  potential  for 

circumventing them 

 

insufficient quality and up-date of the Land Parcel Identification System 
(LPIS) 

  mistakes in the aid applications 

443 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  continued risks of misinterpretation of what is the eligible area for the 

basic payment scheme  

 

inefficient sanction mechanism for non-compliance or low sanction rate 
for non-compliance 

  need  of  raising  awareness,  targeted  training,  and,  development  and 
delivery  of  detailed  methodological  support  and  guidance  for  national 
and regional authorities and final beneficiaries 

  need of more or better resources and administrative capacity building 

  need  of  an  improved  quality  of  key  aspects  of  the  supervisory  and 
control  systems  (better  design  and/or  performance  of  administrative 
checks  and  on-the-spot  controls  and/or  increase  of  the  effectiveness  of 
the  work  carried  out  by  management  verifications,  audit  authorities, 
paying agencies and certification bodies) 

  better use of the information necessary to detect and correct available in 
the supporting documents, as well as at the level of the beneficiary or a 
national/regional body 

  sufficiently robust action plans developed to address both the causes of 
errors  and  the  weaknesses  in  the  management  and  control  systems 
and/or deficiencies in the EU spending 

 

insufficient  introduction  of  changes  by  new  legal  and/or  regulatory 
and/or procedural frameworks likely to have a significant impact on the 
causes of errors 

  need  of  more  initiatives  for  ensuring  a  genuine  simplification  for 

beneficiaries and programmes' implementation 

444 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  knowledge and experience sharing, and dissemination of good practices 
improving  widespread 

level  on 

at  national  and/or  at  EU 
weaknesses/deficiencies/errors 

  expected  results  from  actions  that  will  not  always  be  evident  in  short-

term 

ESF 

NB: In order to develop the replies, the following non-exhaustive list of examples for 
root causes of legality and regularity errors in EU expenditure may be considered 

Not 
relevant 

Relevant 
in some 
respect 

Relevant 
in most 
respect 

Fully 
relevant 

  number and complexity of rules and gold-plating 

 

incorrect transposition of applicable EU legislation into national laws 

 

failure to observe the legal and procedural requirements stemming from 
EU and national legislation and rules 

  sufficient knowledge in applying procurement rules or State aid rules or 
other  applicable  EU  legislation  and  rules  (including  conditions  and 
eligibility  criteria  for  the  rural  development  measures,  simplified  cost 
options,  reasonableness  of  costs,  result-oriented  agri-environment 
payments) 

  complex eligibility rule 

  weaknesses  in  the  set  of  eligibility  rules  that  may  lead  to  potential  for 

circumventing them 

 

insufficient quality and up-date of the Land Parcel Identification System 
(LPIS) 

445 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  mistakes in the aid applications 

  continued risks of misinterpretation of what is the eligible area for the 

basic payment scheme  

 

inefficient sanction mechanism for non-compliance or low sanction rate 
for non-compliance 

  need  of  raising  awareness,  targeted  training,  and,  development  and 
delivery  of  detailed  methodological  support  and  guidance  for  national 
and regional authorities and final beneficiaries 

  need of more or better resources and administrative capacity building 

  need  of  an  improved  quality  of  key  aspects  of  the  supervisory  and 
control  systems  (better  design  and/or  performance  of  administrative 
checks  and  on-the-spot  controls  and/or  increase  of  the  effectiveness  of 
the  work  carried  out  by  management  verifications,  audit  authorities, 
paying agencies and certification bodies) 

  better use of the information necessary to detect and correct available in 
the supporting documents, as well as at the level of the beneficiary or a 
national/regional body 

  sufficiently robust action plans developed to address both the causes of 
errors  and  the  weaknesses  in  the  management  and  control  systems 
and/or deficiencies in the EU spending 

 

insufficient  introduction  of  changes  by  new  legal  and/or  regulatory 
and/or procedural frameworks likely to have a significant impact on the 
causes of errors 

446 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  need  of  more  initiatives  for  ensuring  a  genuine  simplification  for 

beneficiaries and programmes' implementation 

  knowledge and experience sharing, and dissemination of good practices 
improving  widespread 

level  on 

at  national  and/or  at  EU 
weaknesses/deficiencies/errors 

  expected  results  from  actions  that  will  not  always  be  evident  in  short-

term 

Question 1.1.2. 

ERDF AND COHESION 

Main 
lessons 
learned 
while 
the 
addressing 
risks  and  errors 
for 
EU 
the 
spending. 

It  is  necessary  to  act  with  prudence  with  regard  to  the  specific  eligibility  rules  for  the  ERDF.  It  is  not  always  easy  to  interpret  their 
meaning and impact on each of the measures that are co-financed, and different interpretations are possible. It is necessary to avoid the 
risk of interpretations that may be challenged subsequently by the audit and inspection bodies. The measures through which EU aid is 
organised  at  national  level  are  in  turn  regulated  by  national  legislation  (e.g.  legislation  on  subsidies)  incorporating  additional 
requirements that are not specific to the ERDF but must also be complied with. Attention must be paid to compliance with both sets of 
legislation, in particular when the Member State legislation lays down additional requirements that may establish limitations where the 
legislation applicable to the ERDF does not, or even limit the use of tools that EU rules allow. 

It is important to pay attention to the entry into force of new directives and the applicable national legislation. Appropriate training must 
be provided in this area. State aid legislation is highly complex. It sometimes interferes with the legislation on the Funds. Considerable 
technical ability is required to ensure that it is properly applied. A training effort has been carried out in this field. 

ESF 

With regard to the three questions raised by the Court:   

  The  need  to  reinforce  guidance  and  training  for  the  personnel  responsible  for  managing,  monitoring  and  controlling  ESF 

transactions in the framework of the managing and certifying authorities and of the intermediate bodies and beneficiaries.  

  The  need  to  incorporate  procedures  for  risk  analysis  and  management  for  each  of  the  transactions  enabling  appropriate 

mitigating controls to be established.  

  The need to improve, based on the risk of each transaction, the quality control of the transactions carried out by the managing 

authority before the declaration of expenditure is submitted.  

  The need to reinforce training on Simplified Cost Options for all those involved in management and control of ESF transactions. 

447 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Question 1.1.3. 

ESF 

practices 
Good 
and  examples  of 
success  stories  in 
the 
of 
areas 
compliance  with 
EU  and  national 
eligibility 
rules, 
compliance  with 
EU  and  national 
public 
procurement 
legislation, 
and 
compliance  with 
State aid rules. 

  Reinforcement of guidance and training for the persons responsible and the officials of the managing and certifying authorities 

and of the intermediate bodies and beneficiaries. 

  Specific training days have been organised on Risk management and fraud prevention and Simplification. 

 

 

Incorporation  of  risk  analysis  procedures  for  each  of  the  transactions  that  will  establish  mitigating  controls  for  risk  and  fraud 
alerts and the checklists to accompany the supporting documents file when co-financing projects or transactions are submitted. 

Intensification, based on the risk of each transaction, of the quality control to be carried out by the managing authority on the 
transactions before certifying them.  

  Categorisation  of  the  intermediate  bodies  based  on  the  results  of  the  systems  audits  and  the  checks  on  transactions.  This 

categorisation will, if appropriate, increase the scope of the checks. 

  Drawing  up  and  distributing  a  guide  for  application  of  simplified  cost  methods  to  facilitate  application  thereof  by  the 
intermediate  bodies.  In  addition,  the  Managing  Authority  has  worked  directly  with  the  beneficiaries  resulting  from  the 
transactions selected by it to determine the simplification methods to be used in each transaction.  

EAGF 

The Action Plan implemented in 2014 for EAGF to improve the eligibility of the pasture surfaces. 

Question 1.2.1. 

ERDF AND COHESION  

Further  measures 
to 
the 
enhance 
effectiveness of the 
checks  carried  out 
declaring 
before 
or 
certifying 
expenditure  to  the 
Commission. 

Review  of  the  list  of  administrative  checks  to  incorporate  the  issues  that  gave  rise  to  irregularities.  Prior  review  mechanisms  to  be 
applied  to  calls  for  application  and  tender  specifications  by  the  units  responsible  for  checks  (planned  2014/2020).  Reduction  in  the 
number of Intermediate Bodies and reinforcement of quality control in those bodies (planned 2014/2020). 

ESF 

See reply to 1.1.3 

Question 1.2.2. 

ERDF AND COHESION  

Further  measures 
the 
enhance 
to 
of 
effectiveness 
to  detect 
actions 

In cases where an irregularity is detected that could affect the expenditure already declared, an action plan is drawn up to  correct any 
irregular expenditure declared. This plan either involves a retrospective review to withdraw the irregular expense or, in cases where it is 
not  possible  to  quantify  the  financial  impact  of  the  irregularity  detected,  a  flat-rate  correction  based  on  the  seriousness  of  the 
shortcoming and the risk for the EU budget. In the last two years the number of flat-rate corrections has been increased to ensure that 

448 

 
 
 
and  correct  errors 
concerning 
expenditure, which 
previously 
was 
or 
declared 
certified 
the 
to 
Commission. 

expenditure already declared as a result of any irregularities arising from shortcomings in the systems is corrected. 

ESF 

For the MFF 2014-2020, the management and control systems of the managing and certifying authorities (and therefore the IT systems 
that are going to be used - application ESF 14-20) include the procedures for monitoring, processing and withdrawing amounts already 
declared  that  are  detected  as  irregularities  by  the  audit  authorities,  the  EU  institutions,  the  managing  and  certifying  authorities 
themselves or the intermediate bodies. 

EAGF 

Review of the procedures to improve the application of retroactivity (recovery of aid unduly paid in previous periods) for EAGF aid. 

Question 1.3.1. 

ERDF AND COHESION  

Risk  analysis  and 
estimated  level  of 
error  in  the  major 
EU spending areas 
(common 
agricultural 
policy, 
regional 
and  urban  policy, 
employment, 
social  affairs  and 
inclusion). 

For 2014-2020 it is planned to promote the use of simplified costs in cases where the application method laid down in the legislation is 
simple and provides legal certainty, since it does not require a complex justification of the parameters used in calculation, which could 
introduce legal uncertainty. In any case the simplification must be in line with the conditions that must be required of beneficiaries to 
ensure that the aims of the aid are fulfilled. 

ESF 

A risk analysis and fraud prevention system has been drawn up consisting of a self-assessment instrument for identifying and covering 
risk (Risk Matrix), in relation to the transactions to be financed from the European Social Fund in 2014-2020. Adoption of this or of a 
similar system is an obligatory prerequisite for management of the ESF. 

EAGF 

Continued monitoring is carried out of the recommendations of the Court of Auditors and the Commission as part of the EAGF audits to 
improve the system. 

Question 1.3.2. 

ERDF AND COHESION  

Relationship 
between  the  basis 
for  payment  and 
levels  of  error  in 
the  major  EU 
spending 
areas 
(common 
agricultural 
policy, 

regional 

The Court has pointed out this correlation. However, the way in which the measures are justified is sometimes determined not  only by 
the tolerable or target rates of error but also by the objectives of each measure. The more complex the purpose of an aid measure, the 
more  requirements  are  usually  included  to  justify  it.  Greater  complexity  leads  to  a  higher  likelihood  of  error  and  a  greater  risk  of 
inconsistencies of interpretation by beneficiaries, managers and control and audit bodies.  

ESF 

A payment system based on the results obtained and not on the costs incurred would reduce levels of error. 

449 

 
 
and  urban  policy, 
employment, 
social  affairs  and 
inclusion). 

Question 2.1.1. 

Links  between  EU 
the 
in 
priorities 
context 
the 
of 
Europe 2020 
strategy,  including 
Horizon 2020,  and 
national priorities. 

Question 2.1.2. 

to 
synergies 

Measures 
pursue 
and 
complementarities 
ESI 
between 
Funds 
and 
national 
programmes . 

Question 2.2.1. 

ESF 

Performance 
measurement 
system  to  link  EU 
measures, 
operations 
projects 
priorities/Europe 
2020 
and targets. 

or 
to  EU 

objectives 

For  each  transaction  selected,  use  has  been  made  of  the  common  output  and  result  indicators  established  in  Regulation  (EU) 
No 1304/2013 (immediate and long-term), which will give data on what has been delivered by Investment Priority. Similarly, numerous 
specific result and output indicators (over 100) have been used which are applied to all the Operational Programmes, both multi-regional 
and regional. In each Investment Priority one or two indicators have been used to quantify it as of 2023. 

450 

 
 
 
 
Question 2.2.2. 

ESF 

A system to monitor the output and result indicators and an assessment plan have been drawn up to assess how far the objectives are 
achieved  by  the  results  for  each  investment  priority  of  the  operational  programmes.  The  participants  that  have  benefited  from  ESF 
actions are calculated, based in general on the indications in the guidance documents for Monitoring and Assessment drawn up by the 
European Commission. 

Framework for the 
of 
management 
ESI 
in 
Funds 
order  to  achieve  a 
result-oriented 
system  and  impact 
of EU projects. 

Question 2.2.3. 

ESF 

Member 
State 
actions  to  define 
or  improve  result 
indicators  at  EU 
project level. 

In Spain, in accordance with the definition established by the Managing Authority for the concept of transaction, agreed in consensus 
with the Intermediate Bodies and the Commission, it is essential to calculate the indicators through each project with its own substantive 
identity  that  forms  part  of  the  transaction.  Thus,  the  indicators  are  based  on  analysis  and  observation  of  the  implementation  of  each 
project that may form part of the Transaction, provided that the project is understood to be a measure with its own value that contributes 
to achieving the objectives of the ESF and is not linked to a linear or phased implementation. The project may be in itself the transaction 
or  one  or  more  elements  of  the  transaction.  In  any  case,  the  output  of  a  project  must  be  autonomous  and  have  value  in  itself  and  an 
independent budget, and it must be possible to analyse its results without being subject to any other condition. This definition of project 
indicators provides more detailed information on participants and results.  

Question 2.2.4. 

ESF 

As  indicated  earlier,  the  indicators  established  for  the  ESF  in  Regulation  (EU)  No 1304/2013  are  applied,  in  addition  to  specific 
indicators.  In  addition,  output  and  financial  indicators  were  selected  to  establish  the  performance  framework  to  evaluate  its 
implementation in 2018 for the first time. The values to be analysed will be the characteristics of the participants that form part of the 
Transactions/Projects, and the possible changes in their situations once they have participated in the Transaction/Project. 

Performance 
measurement 
system  to  monitor 
the 
achievement 
objectives  at  EU 
measure, 
operations 
or 
project  level  and 
to  monitor 
the 
output  and  result 
indicators  at  EU 
measure, 
operations 
project level. 

or 

451 

 
 
Question 3.1.1. 

for 

Framework  or  a 
system 
the 
follow-up of ECA's 
recommendations 
to 
addressed 
Member  States  in 
annual 
Court's 
and 
special 
reports. 
and 
Monitoring 
reporting 
on 
progress  achieved 
to 
towards 
implementation  of 
Court's 
recommendations 

452 

 
 
  
 
 
 
Sweden 

Question 1.1.1 

Main  root  causes 
in  the  major  EU 
areas 
spending 
(common 
agricultural 
policy, 
regional 
and  urban  policy, 
employment, 
social  affairs  and 
inclusion)  for  the 
persisting 
risks 
and errors pointed 
out by the ECA. 

NB: In order to develop the replies, the following non-exhaustive list of examples for 
root causes of legality and regularity errors in EU expenditure may be considered 

Not 
relevant 

Relevant 
in some 
respect 

Relevant 
in most 
respect 

Fully 
relevant 

  number and complexity of rules and gold-plating 

 

incorrect transposition of applicable EU legislation into national laws 

 

failure to observe the legal and procedural requirements stemming from 
EU and national legislation and rules 

  sufficient knowledge in applying procurement rules or State aid rules or 
other  applicable  EU  legislation  and  rules  (including  conditions  and 
eligibility  criteria  for  the  rural  development  measures,  simplified  cost 
options,  reasonableness  of  costs,  result-oriented  agri-environment 
payments) 

  complex eligibility rule 

  weaknesses  in  the  set  of  eligibility  rules  that  may  lead  to  potential  for 

circumventing them 

 

insufficient quality and up-date of the Land Parcel Identification System 
(LPIS) 

  mistakes in the aid applications 

  continued risks of misinterpretation of what is the eligible area for the 

basic payment scheme  

453 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

inefficient sanction mechanism for non-compliance or low sanction rate 
for non-compliance 

  need  of  raising  awareness,  targeted  training,  and,  development  and 
delivery  of  detailed  methodological  support  and  guidance  for  national 
and regional authorities and final beneficiaries 

  need of more or better resources and administrative capacity building 

  need  of  an  improved  quality  of  key  aspects  of  the  supervisory  and 
control  systems  (better  design  and/or  performance  of  administrative 
checks  and  on-the-spot  controls  and/or  increase  of  the  effectiveness  of 
the  work  carried  out  by  management  verifications,  audit  authorities, 
paying agencies and certification bodies) 

  better use of the information necessary to detect and correct available in 
the supporting documents, as well as at the level of the beneficiary or a 
national/regional body 

  sufficiently robust action plans developed to address both the causes of 
errors  and  the  weaknesses  in  the  management  and  control  systems 
and/or deficiencies in the EU spending 

 

insufficient  introduction  of  changes  by  new  legal  and/or  regulatory 
and/or procedural frameworks likely to have a significant impact on the 
causes of errors 

  need  of  more  initiatives  for  ensuring  a  genuine  simplification  for 

beneficiaries and programmes' implementation 

  knowledge and experience sharing, and dissemination of good practices 
improving  widespread 

at  national  and/or  at  EU 

level  on 

454 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
weaknesses/deficiencies/errors 

  expected  results  from  actions  that  will  not  always  be  evident  in  short-

term 

compliance with EU and national eligibility rules: simplified regulatory framework. 

compliance  with  EU  and  national  public  procurement  legislation:  any  deficiencies  in  compliance  with  rules  on  public 
procurement/State aid are not confined to EU funding. Greater focus is needed on preventive measures. It should be ‘easy to get 
it right’. Professional development and greater consensus are required. 

 

 

 

compliance with State aid rules: professional development and greater consensus are required. 

 

 

 

compliance with EU and national eligibility rules: ESF, EAGF, EAFRD: use of unit costs and standard costs. ERDF: focus on 
preventive measures.  

compliance with EU and national public procurement legislation: support, guidance, targeted training, preventive measures.  

compliance with State aid rules: support, guidance, targeted training, preventive measures. 

Question 1.1.2. 

lessons 
Main 
while 
learned 
addressing 
the 
risks  and  errors 
for 
EU 
the 
spending. 

Question 1.1.3. 

practices 
Good 
and  examples  of 
success  stories  in 
the 
of 
areas 
compliance  with 
EU  and  national 
eligibility 
rules, 
compliance  with 
EU  and  national 
public 
procurement 
legislation, 
and 
compliance  with 
State aid rules. 

Question 1.2.1. 

EAGF, EAFRD: professional development, clearer instructions and checklists, targeted training. ERDF: focus on preventive measures.  

Further  measures 
to 
the 
enhance 
effectiveness of the 

455 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
EAGF, EAFRD: certification bodies have been given a new role and now perform systematic repeat on-the-spot checks in accordance 
with the Commission’s recommended sampling. Increased internal control. ERDF: focus on preventive measures. 

Simplification and clear, transparent rules at national level. Managing authorities given fund coordination role. (LPIS update within three 
years, expanded internal control and quality assurance of error rate statistics.) 

checks  carried  out 
declaring 
before 
certifying 
or 
expenditure  to  the 
Commission. 

Question 1.2.2. 

Further  measures 
the 
to 
enhance 
of 
effectiveness 
actions 
to  detect 
and  correct  errors 
concerning 
expenditure, which 
previously 
was 
or 
declared 
certified 
the 
to 
Commission. 

Question 1.3.1. 

Risk  analysis  and 
estimated  level  of 
error  in  the  major 
EU spending areas 
(common 
agricultural 
policy, 
regional 
and  urban  policy, 
employment, 
social  affairs  and 
inclusion). 

Question 1.3.2. 

Yes. 

Relationship 
between  the  basis 

The more complex the rules and regulations, the greater the risk of error. 

456 

 
 
 
for  payment  and 
levels  of  error  in 
the  major  EU 
spending 
areas 
(common 
agricultural 
regional 
policy, 
and  urban  policy, 
employment, 
social  affairs  and 
inclusion). 

Question 2.1.1. 

Links  between  EU 
the 
in 
priorities 
context 
the 
of 
Europe 2020 
strategy,  including 
Horizon 2020,  and 
national priorities. 

Question 2.1.2. 

to 
synergies 

Measures 
pursue 
and 
complementarities 
ESI 
between 
Funds 
and 
national 
programmes . 

Question 2.2.1. 

Performance 
measurement 
system  to  link  EU 

In  the  area  of  research  and  innovation,  Sweden  has  taken  the  overall  priorities  in  Europe  2020  and  Horizon  2020  into  account  when 
identifying national priorities and strategic areas. Sweden considers it important, in national as well as EU contexts, that investments in 
research and innovation are followed up and evaluated in order to ensure the best possible outcome. 

ESF and ERDF: Managing authorities given  role as fund coordinators. The ESF Council is one example of a managing authority that 
also works closely with other authorities such as Arbetsförmedlingen [the Swedish Public Employment Agency] and Försäkringskassan 
[the Swedish Social Insurance Agency]. 

ERDF: clear system of objectives for the programmes. ESF: all immediate result indicators that have been drawn up for the Social Fund 
programme can be followed up at project level. With regard to long-term result indicators, work is currently under way to change the 
method of data collection and take data from registers for all long-term result indicators bar one. Once the work is complete, it will be 
possible to monitor results at project level for all long-term result indicators bar one. 

457 

 
 
 
 
or 
to  EU 

measures, 
operations 
projects 
priorities/Europe 
2020 
and targets. 

objectives 

ERDF and ESF: indicator system and continual follow-up and evaluation. (The ESF Council also uses result-orientation to ensure that 
projects have an impact in many different ways and on multiple levels.) 

Question 2.2.2. 

Framework for the 
of 
management 
ESI 
in 
Funds 
order  to  achieve  a 
result-oriented 
system  and  impact 
of EU projects. 

Question 2.2.3. 

Yes. 

State 
Member 
actions  to  define 
or  improve  result 
indicators  at  EU 
project level. 

Question 2.2.4. 

Performance 
measurement 
system  to  monitor 
the 
achievement 
objectives  at  EU 
measure, 
operations 
or 
project  level  and 
the 
to  monitor 
output  and  result 
indicators  at  EU 

ESF: All immediate result indicators that have been drawn up for the Social Fund programme can be followed up at project level. With 
regard  to  long-term  result  indicators,  work  is  currently  under  way  to  change  the  method  of  data  collection  and  to  retrieve  data  from 
registers for all long-term result indicators bar one. Once the work is complete, it will be possible to monitor results at project level for 
all long-term result indicators bar one. 

ESF: System already established.  Individual project results are followed up continually in accordance with a set model. Among other 
things,  the  follow-up  is  to  ensure  that  the  projects  are  in  line  with  the  programme  objectives  (and  thus  the  EU  priorities/EU  2020 
objectives)  and  that  the  projects  are  heading  towards  specified  results.  In  order  to  assist  with  the  follow-up,  the  programme’s 
implementation indicators are updated once a month at project level. 

The  programme’s  result  indicators  are  not  compiled  on  a  continual  basis  at  project  level.  However,  the  results  are  broken  down  into 
small  groups  of  projects  and  examined  in  more  detail  on  an  ongoing  basis.  They  are  broken  down  on  the  basis  of  the  programme 
objectives and expected results. If necessary, for example if the data does not correspond to expectations in some way, it is possible to 
obtain the programme’s result indicators at project level. 

Further systems planned: 

The  managing  authority  is  currently  working  on  an  online  system  in  collaboration  with  Statistics  Sweden  (SCB),  in  which  the 
programme’s most important output and result indicators will be published at project level. Both the authority and the projects will have 

458 

 
 
 
 
measure, 
operations 
project level. 

or 

access to these. 

Question 3.1.1. 

Yes. 

Customary  handling  by  the  managing  authority  if  SE  has  been  audited.  Otherwise,  Council  conclusions  are  dealt  with  in  Council 
working groups. The paying agency follows up audit comments irrespective of the audit body that carried out the inspections.  

The  Swedish  Board  of  Agriculture  has  a  programme  management  forum  that  deals  with  recommendations  from  different  reports  as 
regards the efficiency of the support from the Rural Development Programme, the Maritime and Fisheries Programme and the Regional 
and Social Fund programme for community-led local development 

for 

Framework  or  a 
system 
the 
follow-up of ECA's 
recommendations 
to 
addressed 
Member  States  in 
annual 
Court's 
and 
special 
reports. 
and 
Monitoring 
reporting 
on 
progress  achieved 
to 
towards 
implementation  of 
Court's 
recommendations 

459 

 
 
 
 
 
 
United Kingdom 

Question 1.1.1 

Main  root  causes 
in  the  major  EU 
areas 
spending 
(common 
agricultural 
policy, 
regional 
and  urban  policy, 
employment, 
social  affairs  and 
inclusion)  for  the 
persisting 
risks 
and errors pointed 
out by the ECA. 

NB: In order to develop the replies, the following non-exhaustive list of examples for 
root causes of legality and regularity errors in EU expenditure may be considered 

Not 
relevant 

Relevant 
in some 
respect 

Relevant 
in most 
respect 

Fully 
relevant 

  number and complexity of rules and gold-plating 

 

incorrect transposition of applicable EU legislation into national laws 

 

failure to observe the legal and procedural requirements stemming from 
EU and national legislation and rules 

  sufficient knowledge in applying procurement rules or State aid rules or 
other  applicable  EU  legislation  and  rules  (including  conditions  and 
eligibility  criteria  for  the  rural  development  measures,  simplified  cost 
options,  reasonableness  of  costs,  result-oriented  agri-environment 
payments) 

  complex eligibility rule 

  weaknesses  in  the  set  of  eligibility  rules  that  may  lead  to  potential  for 

circumventing them 

 

insufficient quality and up-date of the Land Parcel Identification System 
(LPIS) 

  mistakes in the aid applications 

  continued risks of misinterpretation of what is the eligible area for the 

basic payment scheme  

 

inefficient sanction mechanism for non-compliance or low sanction rate 

460 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
for non-compliance 

  need  of  raising  awareness,  targeted  training,  and,  development  and 
delivery  of  detailed  methodological  support  and  guidance  for  national 
and regional authorities and final beneficiaries 

  need of more or better resources and administrative capacity building 

  need  of  an  improved  quality  of  key  aspects  of  the  supervisory  and 
control  systems  (better  design  and/or  performance  of  administrative 
checks  and  on-the-spot  controls  and/or  increase  of  the  effectiveness  of 
the  work  carried  out  by  management  verifications,  audit  authorities, 
paying agencies and certification bodies) 

  better use of the information necessary to detect and correct available in 
the supporting documents, as well as at the level of the beneficiary or a 
national/regional body 

  sufficiently robust action plans developed to address both the causes of 
errors  and  the  weaknesses  in  the  management  and  control  systems 
and/or deficiencies in the EU spending 

 

insufficient  introduction  of  changes  by  new  legal  and/or  regulatory 
and/or procedural frameworks likely to have a significant impact on the 
causes of errors 

  need  of  more  initiatives  for  ensuring  a  genuine  simplification  for 

beneficiaries and programmes' implementation 

  knowledge and experience sharing, and dissemination of good practices 
improving  widespread 

level  on 

at  national  and/or  at  EU 
weaknesses/deficiencies/errors 

  expected  results  from  actions  that  will  not  always  be  evident  in  short-

term 

461 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Question 1.1.2. 

lessons 
Main 
while 
learned 
addressing 
the 
risks  and  errors 
EU 
the 
for 
spending. 

In terms of the first point, national eligibility rules in England have been streamlined so that they are the bare minimum needed and do 
not gold-plate the EU regulations.   Managing authorities are making  use of the flat rate options provided in the CPR and associated 
delegated acts (the 15% rate of eligible direct staff costs  and the 25% rate taken from H2020). 

On  the  second  and  third  point,  it  is  worth  noting  that  both  the  EU  public  procurement  and  state  aids  legislation  have  recently  been 
modernised.  However, the ex ante conditionalities which require staff to be effectively trained and adequate information to be provided 
have been useful in putting in place preventive measures for 2014-2020. 

In terms of public procurement, the Managing Authority for ERDF in England has put in place the following measures for 2014-2020, 
building on its experiences during 2007-2013: 

  Established a dedicated Procurement Team to provide advice  

  Developed a Procurement Implementation Plan  

  Developed a set of standard procurement documents and tools 

  Set up a Procurement Practitioner in each Growth Delivery Team 

  Rolled out a procurement training programme for all appraisal and contract management staff 

  Drafted checklists and standardised Work Instructions to check procurement through our business process 

  Defined an escalation process for procurement queries and set up a database of responses  

  Use lessons from 07-13 to produce list of common errors and case study library for 14-20 

  Have  front-loaded  the  checking  of procurement  processes  to  be  used  by  grant  recipients  in  the  14-20  programmes  so  that  we 

start from a point of compliance rather than picking up errors later 

  Redrafted and published the Procurement Law ESIF Compliance Guidance Note 

  Begun  to  develop  an  Aide  Memoire  for  Applicants  to  set  out  the  core  documentation  that  needs  to  be  retained  for  the 

procurement audit trail 

  Met  with  the  Local  Government  Association  (as  the  representative  of  Local  Authorities  who  are    major  grant  recipients)  to 

discuss common procurement issues and are developing best practice case studies 

462 

 
 
Question 1.1.3. 

practices 
Good 
and  examples  of 
success  stories  in 
the 
of 
areas 
compliance  with 
EU  and  national 
eligibility 
rules, 
compliance  with 
EU  and  national 
public 
procurement 
legislation, 
and 
compliance  with 
State aid rules. 

Question 1.2.1. 

Further  measures 
to 
the 
enhance 
effectiveness of the 
checks  carried  out 
declaring 
before 
or 
certifying 
expenditure  to  the 
Commission. 

See the measures put in place in England on public procurement, detailed above.   England’s programmes during 2007-2013 suffered 
from interruptions and suspensions during 2007-2013 largely because of deficiencies in public procurement.   The managing authority 
has used these experience to put in place improved processes for 2014-2020. 

Departments lead on and have specific responsibility for EU spending in their area, reflecting their Accounting Officer responsibilities. 
For each of the major EU funds managed through the public sector, there are specific groups which focus on corrections, the top level of 
which  engage  with  the  Treasury.  For  example:  The  Department  for  Environment,  Food  and  Rural  Affairs‘  (DEFRA)  Disallowance 
Steering Group, which has HM Treasury on it, oversees DEFRA‘s Disallowance Strategy on the CAP. The strategy sets out a root-cause 
analysis of the causes of CAP disallowance and mitigating actions to reduce it. The UK-wide Partnership Agreement Programme Board, 
chaired by the Department for Business, Energy, and Industrial Strategy (BEIS) is attended by the Treasury, Whitehall Departments and 
devolved  administrations  responsible  for  managing  the  European  Social  Fund  (ESF).  The  European  Regional  Development  Fund 
(ERDF);  the  European  Agricultural  Fund  for  Rural  Development  (EAFRD);  and  European  Maritime  and  Fisheries  Fund  (EMFF) 
consider  strategic  approaches  to  managing  corrections,  interruptions  and  suspensions.  Departments  also  have  internal  groups  which 
consider  corrections,  such  as  the  ESF  Management  Board,  the  Audit  and  Risk  Committee  on  ERDF,  and  the  CAP  Disallowance 
Working group. 

Question 1.2.2. 

Further  measures 
the 
to 
enhance 
effectiveness 
of 
to  detect 
actions 
and  correct  errors 
concerning 

Departments lead on and have specific responsibility for EU spending in their area, reflecting their Accounting Officer responsibilities. 
For each of the major EU funds managed through the public sector, there are specific groups which focus on corrections, the top level of 
which  engage  with  the  Treasury.  For  example:  The  Department  for  Environment,  Food  and  Rural  Affairs‘  (DEFRA)  Disallowance 
Steering Group, which has HM Treasury on it, oversees DEFRA‘s Disallowance Strategy on the CAP. The strategy sets out a root-cause 
analysis of the causes of CAP disallowance and mitigating actions to reduce it. The UK-wide Partnership Agreement Programme Board, 
chaired by the Department for Business, Energy, and Industrial Strategy (BEIS) is attended by the Treasury, Whitehall Departments and 
devolved  administrations  responsible  for  managing  the  European  Social  Fund  (ESF).  The  European  Regional  Development  Fund 
(ERDF);  the  European  Agricultural  Fund  for  Rural  Development  (EAFRD);  and  European  Maritime  and  Fisheries  Fund  (EMFF) 

463 

 
 
consider  strategic  approaches  to  managing  corrections,  interruptions  and  suspensions.  Departments  also  have  internal  groups  which 
consider  corrections,  such  as  the  ESF  Management  Board,  the  Audit  and  Risk  Committee  on  ERDF,  and  the  CAP  Disallowance 
Working group. 

expenditure, which 
previously 
was 
or 
declared 
certified 
the 
to 
Commission. 

Question 1.3.1. 

Risk  analysis  and 
estimated  level  of 
error  in  the  major 
EU spending areas 
(common 
agricultural 
regional 
policy, 
and  urban  policy, 
employment, 
social  affairs  and 
inclusion). 

Question 1.3.2. 

Relationship 
between  the  basis 
for  payment  and 
levels  of  error  in 
the  major  EU 
spending 
areas 
(common 
agricultural 
regional 
policy, 
and  urban  policy, 
employment, 
social  affairs  and 
inclusion). 

Question 2.1.1. 

The Government has strategies in each of the main EU funds it manages. Where relevant for national allocations of EU funds, strategy 
documents are agreed with the Commission at the beginning of the programming period which set out intended results and priorities to 

464 

 
 
 
 
Links  between  EU 
the 
in 
priorities 
the 
of 
context 
Europe 2020 
strategy,  including 
Horizon 2020,  and 
national priorities. 

achieve maximum value for money. The Treasury will use the 2016 Treasury Statement on EU finances to set out overall context for the 
Government‘s  strategy  on  the  expenditure  on  EU  receipts,  particularly  following  the  referendum,  and  signpost  the  Government‘s 
existing strategy. For example, for ESIFs, the UK Partnership Agreement sets out the plans and priorities for deployment of these funds 
to  complement  EU  and  UK  objectives  on  sustainable  jobs  and  growth.  It  has  promoted  value  for  money  by:  setting  consistent 
performance  management  standards  across  different  programmes;  establishing  a  strategic  framework  for  investments;  and  prioritising 
local  needs.  Underlying  this  are  detailed  Operational  Programmes  setting  out  the  strategy  and  priorities  for  each  Fund  in  each  of  the 
constituent  nations  along  with  information  about  management  and  delivery.  Rural  Development  Programmes  set  out  the  strategy  and 
priorities  for  the  current  funding  period  for  the  EAFRD,  including  promoting  sustainable  farming  practices  and  growth  of  rural 
businesses. For the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF), where the Commission do not require strategic programming of the 
Funds, DEFRA‘s policy approach is instead set out in a series of formal consultation responses.  

Question 2.1.2. 

to 
synergies 

Measures 
pursue 
and 
complementarities 
ESI 
between 
and 
Funds 
national 
programmes . 

The Government has strategies in each of the main EU funds it manages. Where relevant for national allocations of EU funds, strategy 
documents are agreed with the Commission at the beginning of the programming period which set out intended results and priorities to 
achieve maximum value for money. The Treasury will use the 2016 Treasury Statement on EU finances to set out overall context for the 
Government‘s  strategy  on  the  expenditure  on  EU  receipts,  particularly  following  the  referendum,  and  signpost  the  Government‘s 
existing strategy. For example, for ESIFs, the UK Partnership Agreement sets out the plans and priorities for deployment of these funds 
to  complement  EU  and  UK  objectives  on  sustainable  jobs  and  growth.  It  has  promoted  value  for  money  by:  setting  consistent 
performance  management  standards  across  different  programmes;  establishing  a  strategic  framework  for  investments;  and  prioritising 
local  needs.  Underlying  this  are  detailed  Operational  Programmes  setting  out  the  strategy  and  priorities  for  each  Fund  in  each  of  the 
constituent  nations  along  with  information  about  management  and  delivery.  Rural  Development  Programmes  set  out  the  strategy  and 
priorities  for  the  current  funding  period  for  the  EAFRD,  including  promoting  sustainable  farming  practices  and  growth  of  rural 
businesses. For the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF), where the Commission do not require strategic programming of the 
Funds, DEFRA‘s policy approach is instead set out in a series of formal consultation responses.  

The  EU  regulatory  framework  for  2014-2020  requires  a  link  between  EU  priorities  and  use  of  ESI  Funds.    Targets  are  set  out  in  the 
Partnership Agreement and the respective operational programmes for each ESI Fund. 

Question 2.2.1. 

Performance 
measurement 
system  to  link  EU 
measures, 
operations 
projects 
priorities/Europe 
2020 
and targets. 

or 
to  EU 

objectives 

Question 2.2.2. 

The  EU  regulatory  framework  for  2014-2020  requires  a  link  between  EU  priorities  and  use  of  ESI  Funds.    Targets  are  set  out  in  the 

465 

 
 
Partnership Agreement and the respective operational programmes for each ESI Fund. 

Framework for the 
of 
management 
in 
Funds 
ESI 
order  to  achieve  a 
result-oriented 
system  and  impact 
of EU projects. 

Question 2.2.3. 

State 
Member 
actions  to  define 
or  improve  result 
indicators  at  EU 
project level. 

Question 2.2.4. 

Performance 
measurement 
system  to  monitor 
the 
achievement 
objectives  at  EU 
measure, 
operations 
or 
project  level  and 
the 
to  monitor 
output  and  result 
indicators  at  EU 
measure, 
operations 
project level. 

or 

Question 3.1.1. 

Yes. 

Framework  or  a 
system 
the 
follow-up of ECA's 

for 

Departments  and  Managing  Authorities  are  responsible  for  following  up  ECA  recommendations  in  the  funds  they  manage.  This  is 
monitored as part of governance at a cross-Government level.  

466 

 
 
 
 
recommendations 
addressed 
to 
Member  States  in 
annual 
Court's 
and 
special 
reports. 
and 
Monitoring 
reporting 
on 
progress  achieved 
towards 
to 
implementation  of 
Court's 
recommendations 

467 

 
 
 
ANNEX IV – MEMBER STATES' REPLIES TO PART B OF THE QUESTIONNAIRE 

Part B: Please enter any general comments you have concerning the 2015 Annual report 

or general issues relating to the discharge procedure 

468 

 
 
 
 
 
Denmark 

Denmark is pleased that, for the ninth consecutive year, the Court was able to give a positive opinion on the reliability of the accounts and thus considers that 
the EU’s accounts give a fair view of revenue and expenditure, and of the EU’s financial position. Denmark is also satisfied that the Court gave a positive 
opinion on the legality and regularity of transactions concerning own resources and of the payments relating to administration. 

However, Denmark regrets that the Court had to issue an adverse opinion on payments as a whole. It is a Danish priority to work towards an audit opinion 
with fewer reservations. In that light, it is positive that the error rate for 2015 was an improvement on the previous years. 

Denmark  takes  the  view  that  both  the  Commission  and  the  Member  States  bear  responsibility  for  ensuring  satisfactory  implementation  of  the  budget,  and 
therefore stresses the importance of using all available instruments for fuller implementation of the EU budget. It is important for the Commission to focus its 
efforts on headings (and Member States) where error rates are considerably higher than 2 %. In that connection, requirements for increased auditing must be 
proportionate to the increased administrative burden and the financial risks to the EU budget. 

It  is  therefore  also  a  priority  for  Denmark  to  focus  on  the  underlying  reasons  for  the  complexity  and  to  work  towards  simpler  rules,  which  will  ease 
administration for both authorities and beneficiaries. 

Germany 

It is important to note that the ECA’s assessment of public procurement errors differs from that of the European Commission, which the Commission should 
take into account. 

Answering questions and following up audit findings has been complicated by the fact that the ECA’s annual report has already been published and some of 
the  corresponding  follow-up  audits  have  been  launched,  even  though  no  final  audit  communications  have  been  issued  giving  feedback  on  the  opinions 
submitted. 

Netherlands 

We are very grateful to the European Commission for this extensive questionnaire.  

We are particularly interested in the forthcoming transparent reporting containing an analysis at Member State and regional level of ‘persistently high errors’ 
and very much look forward to receiving this. 

Poland 

In Poland’s opinion, the verification of 2015 annual report by the Managing Authorities is to no avail at this point, given that as at today, a large part of audits 
referring to 2015 has not been officially closed as yet, and there is no final position of the ECA in these matters. Additionally, only after the final position of 
the  ECA  is  communicated,  the  European  Commission  will  issue  recommendations  for  the  Member  State  in  reference  to  specific  cases  (e.g.  to  impose 
corrections). 

469 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Still, Poland welcomes the information about another year witnessing a decreased level of errors in the EU budget (from 4.5/4.4 % in 2013 and 2014 to 3.8 % 
in 2015), notwithstanding the fact that the budget for payments in 2015 was the second (after 2013) in terms of its size in the history, and the cumulation of 
expenditure (reimbursements) from the Cohesion Policy 2007–2013 was significant. 

It is a positive signal that the rate of errors has been decreasing regularly under shared management (in the Cohesion Policy, it dropped to 5.2% from 5.7 % in 
2014). This is much below the rates identified for the 2000–2006 programming period. 

It is equally significant, as the ECA points out, that the type of management (either centralised or shared) has no impact on the rate of errors. Moreover, it is 
necessary to remember that in the case of share management, we deal with 28 different management and control systems. 

At the same time, Poland wishes to emphasise that the error as estimated by the ECA is not identical to ‘fraud, inefficiency or waste’. In accordance with the 
ECA’s assessment, fraud suspicions were raised only in respect of approx. 1 % of the transactions controlled (12 out of 1200), which is less than in 2014 (22 
transactions). 

Poland agrees with the ECA’s finding that RAL (reste à liquider) liabilities remain one of the main challenges faced by the EU budget. Therefore, Poland 
agrees with the ECA that in the context of overdue payments, it is necessary to prepare medium-term payment forecasts. 

Poland believes that the ECA’s report is overly focused on errors (often calculation errors) and it does not attempt to find answers to the question about the 
effective use of EU funds (performance and added value). 

Poland  emphasises  at  this  point  that  the  annual  error  rate  calculated  by  the  ECA  should  be  considered  in  the  context  of  multi-annual  character  of  EU 
interventions (including net financial corrections and amounts recovered).  

Poland agrees with the ECA's statement that the more complex information is required from beneficiaries, the higher is the risk of error. This may bring about 
a significant (even threefold) increase in the share of eligibility errors in the total number of errors. 

However, a significant decrease in the rate of errors arising from public procurement (from 1.2 p.p. in 2014 to 0.4 p.p. in 2015) is a positive signal. 

Poland  welcomes  the  ECA's  recommendation  to  extend  the  eligibility  period  for  financial  instruments.  It  is  disturbing,  however,  that  the  mean  rate  of 
disbursement in the case of all (1 025) financial instruments of the ERDF and the ESF in the EU as at the end of 2014 was barely 57 %. Poland hopes that in 
accordance  with  information  provided  by  the  European  Commission,  given  the  life  cycle  of  financial  instruments,  growth  is  expected  in  the  last  year  of 
implementation. 

Poland repeatedly emphasised that cross-compliance requirements are not an eligibility criterion for payments within the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP), 
which is why it welcomes the change in the ECA’s methodology of calculating errors within the CAP. 

Sweden 

There are no observations in Annex I that require Sweden to take action. In order to facilitate the completion of this questionnaire, Sweden would appreciate it 
if the Commission could sift the information in Annex I more thoroughly and only include observations that require the Member States to take action. 

470