COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT Early Detection and Exclusion System (EDES) - Panel referred to in Article 108 of the Financial Regulation Accompanying the document REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL Protection of the European Union's financial interests - Fight against fraud 2016 Annual Report
Date: 2017-07-20
Institutions: European Anti-Fraud Office, European Commission
Subjects: EU programme, activity report, common strategy, crime, fight against crime, financial control, fraud, fraud against the EU, illicit trade

EN 

   EN 

   EUROPEAN COMMISSION  Brussels, 20.7.2017  SWD(2017) 268 final   COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT Early Detection and Exclusion System (EDES) - Panel referred to in Article 108 of the Financial Regulation Accompanying the document REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL Protection of the European Union's financial interests - Fight against fraud 2016 Annual Report {COM(2017) 383 final} {SWD(2017) 266 final} {SWD(2017) 267 final} {SWD(2017) 269 final} {SWD(2017) 270 final}  
 
 
Table of Contents 

1. 

INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................... 2 

2.  THE PANEL ............................................................................................................... 2 

2.1.  The Composition of the Panel ........................................................................... 2 

2.2.  ROLE OF THE PANEL .................................................................................... 3 

2.3.  THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE PANEL ............................................... 5 

3.  THE  PUBLICATION  OF  SANCTIONS  IMPOSED  ON  ECONOMIC 

OPERATORS .............................................................................................................. 6 

4.  OVERVIEW OF CASES ............................................................................................ 7 

 
 
 
 
 
1. 

INTRODUCTION 

From  2004  to  2015,  the  Commission  ran  an  internal  early  warning  system  and  an 
exclusion  database  in  order  to  protect  the  Union's  financial  interests.  The  aim  of  the 
system was to warn about potentially unreliable economic operators and to prevent them 
from obtaining future EU financing by excluding them or imposing a financial penalty on 
them. The internal early warning system only covered the Commission and its executive 
agencies. In its judgment in the Planet case1 the General Court considered that the early 
warning  system  was  not  purely  internal  since  it  affected  the  rights  of  the  economic 
operators concerned and that it did not properly ensure the operator's right to be heard2. 
The  Commission  seized  the  opportunity  of  this  judgment  to  propose  a  substantial 
revision  of  the  system  not  only  in  order  to  fully  ensure  the  respect  of  the  fundamental 
rights  of  the  economic  operators  concerned  but  also  to  improve  the  system  in  terms  of 
centralised assessment of cases, independence and transparency3. As a result a new single 
Early  Detection  and  Exclusion  System  (EDES)  was  put  in  place  as  part  of  the  2015 
revision  of  the  Financial  Regulation4.  Articles  105a  to  108  provide  for  rules  that 
centralise  the  exclusion process  for  all  institutions,  EU  offices,  agencies  and  bodies.  In 
particular,  Article  108(7)  establishes  a  Panel  presided  over  by  a  standing  high-level 
independent Chair whose role is to issue recommendations on administrative sanctions, 
i.e.  exclusion  and/or  financial  penalties  and,  where  applicable,  the  publication  thereof. 
These recommendations are addressed to the authorising officers of EU institutions, EU 
offices, agencies and bodies which remain sole competent to take the decision to exclude 
an economic operator and/or to impose a financial penalty on it.  

2016 constitutes the first year of application of this new system, the “EDES” that entered 
into application on 1 January 2016: the Panel was established and its Chair and Deputy 
Chair  were  selected  and  appointed  by  the  Commission.  In  parallel,  a  new  IT  tool,  the 
EDES  Database,  was  set  up. It lists  all  cases  of  early  detection  of  risks  threatening  the 
EU's financial interests, exclusion of and imposition of financial penalties on unreliable 
economic operators and is also operational since 1 January 2016. The Commission also 
launched  a  public  webpage  on  the  Europa  website,  which  lists  the  most  serious  cases 
sanctioned by exclusion and/or a financial penalty decisions. The purpose of publication 
is to ensure a deterrent effect in order to better protect the Union's financial interests. The 
publication  is  subject  to  strict  conditions,  including  compliance  with  the  protection  of 
personal data.  

2.  THE PANEL 

The  coherence  of  the  administrative  sanctions  (i.e.  exclusion  and/or  financial  penalties 
and,  where  applicable,  the  publication  thereof)  procedure  is  ensured  by  the  newly 
established Panel. 

2.1.  The Composition of the Panel  

As laid down in Article 108(7) of the Financial Regulation, the Panel is composed of: 

1 C-314/11 P - Commission v Planet.  
2 The situation was different for the exclusion part of the system which was already open to other actors of 
implementation of the EU budget and ensured the rights of defence. 
3 COM(2014) 358 final of 18.6.2014. 
4 Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 2015/1929 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 28 October 
2015 (OJ L 286, 30.10.2015, p. 1).  

3 

 
                                                 
-  a standing high-level independent Chair; 

- 

two  permanent  Member  representatives  of  the  Commission  as  the  owner  of 
the system, who express a joint position for the cases submitted to the Panel; 
and 

-  one ad-hoc Member representative of the requesting authorising officer. 

The  Chair  of  the  Panel  and  his/her  Deputy  are  appointed  by  the  Commission  and  are 
independent in the performance of their mandate5. They are chosen from among former 
members of the Court of Auditors, the Court of Justice or former officials who have had 
at  least  the  rank  of  Director-General  in  an  institution  of  the  Union  other  than  the 
Commission.  Their  term  of  office  is  five  years  and  is  not  renewable.  The  Chair  is  Mr 
Christian Pennera, former Jurisconsult of the European Parliament and his Deputy is Ms 
María Isabel Rofes i Pujol, former Member of the Civil Service Tribunal of the European 
Union.  

The two permanent Members of the Panel designated by the Commission are Mr. Hubert 
Szlaszewski designated ad personam, presently Principal Advisor within the Secretariat 
General  of  the  Commission,  and  Mr.  Olivier  Waelbroeck,  Director  of  the  Central 
Financial Service in the Directorate-General for Budget6. 

For  each  case,  the  additional  Member  representing  the  requesting  authorising  officer  is 
designated in accordance with the rules of procedure and the internal administrative rules 
of the institution, agency, office or body concerned. 

The  Panel  is  assisted  by  observers  and  in  all  cases  by  a  representative  of  the  Legal 
Service  of  the  Commission.  In  addition,  a  representative  of  OLAF  participates  in  the 
Panel  as  observer  in  the  cases  referred  to  the  Panel  on  the  basis  of  an  OLAF 
investigation. This status allows OLAF to present the facts. The active contribution of the 
Legal Service of the Commission and of OLAF to the work of the Panel has been a key 
element in providing the Panel with relevant information and allowing it to deliver high 
quality recommendations in a timely way.  

The  Panel  is  supported  by  a  permanent  secretariat  provided  by  the  Commission  and 
administratively attached to the Directorate-General for Budget. 

2.2.  ROLE OF THE PANEL 

In  the  absence  of  a  final  national  judgment  or,  where  applicable,  a  final  administrative 
decision,  authorising  officers  who  would  like  to  exclude  and/or  fine  an  unreliable 
economic operator7 have to first request a recommendation of the Panel. The grounds for 
excluding economic operators are the following: 

5 Article 144(1) subparagraph 2 of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/2462 of 30 October 2015 
amending  Delegated  Regulation  (EU)  No  1268/2012  on  the  rules  of  application  of  Regulation  (EU, 
Euratom) No 966/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council on the financial rules applicable to 
the general budget of the Union (OJ L 362, 31.12.2012, p. 1). 
6  Deputies  of  the  Permanent  Members  are:  Mr.  Olivier  Dandoy  designated  ad  personam  from  the 
Secretariat General of the Commission and Ms. Victoria Gil Casado from the Central Financial Service in 
the Directorate-General for Budget. 
7  'Economic  operator'  means  any  natural  or  legal  person,  including  a  public  entity,  or  a  group  of  such 
persons, which applies for EU and/or EDF funds or has already received such funds. 

4 

 
                                                 
-  grave professional misconduct resulting from the violation of applicable laws 
or  regulations  or  ethical  standards  of  the  profession  to  which  the  economic 
operator concerned belongs, or from the engagement in any wrongful conduct 
which  has  an  impact  on  the  professional  credibility  where  such  conduct 
denotes wrongful intent or gross negligence; 

- 

- 

fraud,  corruption,  participation  in  a criminal  organisation,  money  laundering 
or terrorist financing, terrorist-related offences or offences linked to terrorist 
activities, and child labour or other forms of trafficking in human beings; 

in  complying  with  main  obligations 

significant  deficiencies 
the 
performance  of  a  contract  financed  by  the  budget  ('serious  breach  of 
obligations'),  which  has  led  to  its  early  termination  or  to  the  application  of 
liquidated  damages  or  other  contractual  penalties,  or  which  has  been 
discovered  following  checks,  audits  or  investigations  by  an  authorising 
officer, OLAF or the Court of Auditors; 

in 

- 

irregularity  within  the  meaning  of  Article  1(2)  of  Council  Regulation  (EC, 
Euratom) No 2988/958.  

In  general,  each  case  is  examined  twice  by  the  Panel in  two  succeeding  meetings.  In  a 
first session, the Panel examines the facts and findings and their preliminary qualification 
in  law.  It  ensures  the  right  to  be  heard  by  sending  a  letter  to  the  economic  operator  in 
which  the  latter  is  requested  to  submit  written  observations.  In  a  second  session,  the 
Panel examines the written observations, if any, and adopts its recommendation which is 
addressed to the requesting authorising officer. 

The Panel must adopt this recommendation within 45 calendar days from the referral of 
the  case  to  the  Panel.  This  deadline  starts  once  the  request  for  referral  of  a  case  is 
complete. Pursuant to the Financial Regulation, the economic operator should at least be 
granted 15 calendar days, i.e. 10 working days at the most, to present its observations. In 
practice, despite the tight constraint of the short deadline of 45 calendar days, the Panel 
grants more time to the economic operator, i.e. at least 11 or 12 working days. 

The  recommendation  of  the  Panel  includes  a  preliminary  classification  in  law  of  the 
conduct  referred  to  above,  with  regard  to  established  facts  or  other  findings.  It  is 
important to recall that the Panel has no investigative powers. It will therefore principally 
rely on: 

a)  facts established in the context of audits or investigations carried out by the Court 
of  Auditors,  OLAF  or  internal  audit,  or  any  other  check,  audit  or  control 
performed under the responsibility of the authorising officer; 

b)  non-final administrative decisions which may include disciplinary measures taken 
by  the  competent  supervisory  body  responsible  for  the  verification  of  the 
application of standards of professional ethics; 

8 Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2988/95 of 18 December 1995 on the protection of the European 
Communities  financial  interests  (OJ  L  312,  23.12.1995,  p.  1)  which  defines  irregularity  as:  "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." 

5 

 
                                                 
c)  decisions  of  the  European  Central  Bank,  the  European  Investment  Bank,  the 

European Investment Fund or international organisations; 

d)  decisions  of  the  Commission  relating  to  the  infringement  of  the  Union's 
competition rules or of a national competent authority relating to the infringement 
of Union or national competition law. 

Where  the  Panel  considers  that  the  economic  operator  concerned  should  be  excluded 
and/or that a financial penalty should be imposed on it, its recommendation contains the 
facts or findings and their preliminary classification in law as well as one or several of 
the following elements: 

a)  an assessment of the need to impose a financial penalty and its amount; 

b)  an  assessment  of  the  need  to  exclude  the  economic  operator  concerned  and,  in 

that case, the suggested duration of such an exclusion; 

c)  an  assessment  of  the  need  to  publish  the  information  related  to  the  economic 

operator who is excluded and/or subject to a financial penalty; 

d)  an assessment of remedial measures taken by the economic operator, if any; 

e)  assessment of the proportionality principle as referred to in Article 106(3) of the 
Financial Regulation so as to retain aggravating or mitigating circumstances.  

After an assessment of the remedial measures the Panel may decide to recommend not to 
impose  sanctions  on  the  economic  operator.  The  option  to  take  into  account  remedial 
measures was introduced in the 2015 revision of the Financial Regulation, based on the 
procurement  Directives9  in  order  to  reduce  the  sanctions  imposed  on  the  economic 
operator or to avoid its exclusion altogether where the economic operator has taken the 
necessary corrective measures. For this latter case, the measures listed in Article 106(8) 
of  the  Financial  Regulation  must  be  sufficient  to  demonstrate  the  reliability  of  the 
economic operator to receive future Union funds.  

2.3.  THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE PANEL 

In  the  light  of  the  principle  of  proportionality  enshrined  in  Articles  49  and  52  of  the 
Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union10 and of remedial measures taken 
by the economic operator concerned, the Panel can recommend: 

-  The exclusion of the economic operator concerned for up to 3 years (up to 5 
years  in  the  case  of  fraud)  from  participation  in  all  or  part  of  funding 
procedures,  governed  by  the  Union  budget  in  line  with  the  Financial 

9  Directive  2014/24/EU  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  26  February  2014  on  public 
procurement and repealing Directive 2004/18/EC (OJ L 94, 28.03.2014, p.65) 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, 28.03.2014, p.1). 
10 See also Recital 28 of Regulation (EU, Euratom) 2015/1929 of the European Union and of the Council 
of 28 October 2015 amending regulation (EU, Euratom) No 966/2012 on the financial rules applicable to 
the general budget of the Union, OJ L 286, 30.10.2015, p. 1. 

6 

 
 
 
                                                 
Regulation  and  award  procedures  governed  by  the  European  Development 
Funds; 

-  The imposition a financial penalty of between 2 % and 10 % of the total value 
of the contract on an economic operator who has attempted to obtain access to 
Union  funds  by  participating  or  requesting  to  participate  in  a  procurement 
procedure,  without  having  declared  it  in  one  of  the  following  exclusion 
situations; 

(ii) as  an  alternative  to  a  decision  to  exclude  the  economic  operator,  where 
such an exclusion would be disproportionate; 

(iii) in  addition  to  an  exclusion  which  is  necessary  to  protect  the  Union's 
financial interests,  where  the  economic  operator  has  adopted  a  systemic  and 
recurrent conduct with the intention of unduly obtaining Union funds11. 

- 

In  order  to  reinforce  the  deterrent  effect  of  the  exclusion  and/or  financial 
penalty,  the  publication  on  the  internet  site  of  the  Commission  information 
related to the exclusion and, where applicable, the financial penalty12. 

Even if they have only a non-binding nature, due to the need to respect the administrative 
autonomy of the Institutions and other EU bodies, the recommendations of the Panel bear 
a certain weight due to the composition of the Panel and the recognised authority of its 
high level independent Chair. This is further evidenced by the fact that the Authorising 
Officer who decides not to follow a recommendation of the Panel in a given case must 
inform the latter of the reasons which have led him/her to take a different decision. 

3.  THE  PUBLICATION  OF  SANCTIONS  IMPOSED  ON  ECONOMIC 

OPERATORS 

The  publication  of  the  sanctions  is  a  powerful  tool  to  ensure  a  deterrent  effect  and  to 
prevent misuse of EU funds. The first publication of information related to sanctions took 
place on 24 November 2016.   

The recommendation to publish must comply with the protection of personal data and be 
necessary  to  ensure  this  deterrent  effect.  Therefore,  the  publication  will  only  be 
recommended in serious cases with aggravating factors. In addition, the publication can 
only  intervene  three  months  after  the  decision  is  taken  by  the  economic  operator,  by 
which time  the decision of the authorising officer may be contested before the General 
Court.  If  this  is  the  case  then  the  publication  will  take  place  after  the  judgment  of  the 
Court, should the judgment uphold the decision of the Authorising Officer.  

11  This  possibility  is  not  applicable  to  cases  where  the  conduct  consists  of  significant  deficiencies  in 

complying with main obligations in the performance of a contract. 

12 Information cannot be published in any of the following circumstances:- where it is necessary to preserve 
the confidentiality of an investigation or of national judicial proceedings;- where publication would cause 
disproportionate  damage  to  the  economic  operator  concerned  or  would  otherwise  be  disproportionate  on 
the basis of the proportionality criteria set out and to the amount of the financial penalty; 
-  where  a  natural  person  is  concerned,  unless  the  publication  of  personal  data  is  exceptionally  justified, 
inter alia, by the seriousness of the conduct or its impact on the Union's financial interests. 

7 

 
                                                 
 
4.  OVERVIEW OF CASES  

The  Panel  started  functioning  at  the  beginning  of  2016  and  issued  its  first 
recommendation on 15 March 2016. Pending the appointment of the standing high-level 
independent  Chair  and  his  Deputy  by  the  Commission,  it  was  presided  on  an  interim 
basis by the permanent Member with the highest seniority. The Chair of the Panel took 
office once he had been appointed and presided his first meeting on 24 November 2016.  

In 2016, 21 cases relating to 33 economic operators were addressed to the Panel through 
its  permanent  secretariat  by  different  authorising  services,  including  14  from  the 
Commission,  five  from  executive  agencies,  one  from  an  office  and  one  from  a 
decentralised agency.  

As  of  30  June  2017,  the  Panel  has  issued  17  recommendations,  three  of  which  were 
adopted in 2016. In three recommendations, the Panel concluded that no sanctions should 
be imposed, in the light of the remedial measures taken by the operator. In addition to the 
cases  for which the Panel issued a recommendation,  in  one case, the facts  presented to 
the Panel were not established. In two others, the authorising officer withdrew the cases. 
One case is currently suspended. 

In  the  13  decisions  adopted  so  far  by  authorising  officers,  the  recommendations  of  the 
Panel have been followed in full and the economic operators have been excluded. In 1 of 
these  cases,  a  financial  penalty  was  imposed  in  addition  and  in  6  of  these  cases  it  was 
decided to publish the sanctions.  The publicity was justified by e.g. the refusal of audits 
or by a misleading depiction of the solvability of the contractor due to the default of its 
guarantor.  

The  following  table  shows  an  overview  of  the  cases  where  the  Panel  issued  a 
recommendation in 2016 and of those cases submitted to the Panel in 2016 and where the 
recommendation was issued in the first semester of 2017. It contains a summary of facts 
and  findings,  their  preliminary  qualification  in  law  if  applicable,  the  recommended 
administrative  sanction  and  the  date  thereof  and  if  a  publication  on  the  website  of  the 
Commission was recommended. The cases have been anonymised. 

8 

 
 
Annex 1 
Summary of anonymised cases dealt with by the Panel of Article 108 of the Financial Regulation up 
until 30.06.2017 

CASE NUMBER  

FACTS 

QUALIFICATION IN LAW 
(exclusion ground) 

SANCTIONS  

PUBLICATION 

Case 2016/1 

Date  of  the  Panel 
recommendation: 
16.3.2016 

Date  of  the  decision 
of 
the  authorising 
officer:  

23.6.2016 

Case 2016/2 

The  director  of  a  grant  beneficiary   
publicly  admitted 
that  he  was 
in  sharing  disreputable 
involved 
information  on  the  director  of  a 
competitor entity. 

that  has 

professional 
"Grave 
misconduct" 
an 
impact  on  the  integrity  and 
professional  credibility  of  the 
economic operator. 

Exclusion from specific 
funding programme for 
3 years. 

Not recommended.  

The  manager  of  a  grant  beneficiary 
misappropriated EU funds; 

"Serious 
contractual obligations". 

breaches 

of 

Exclusion of 3 years.  

Recommended  based 
on refusal of audits. 

Date  of  the  Panel 
recommendation: 
20.4.2016 

In  another  project,  the  beneficiary 
did not perform any work; 

Date  of  the  decision 

Prevented  the  auditors  to  perform  a 

Financial  penalty  of  10 
%  of  the  value  of  one 
of the project. 

on 

24 
Published 
November  2016  on 
the internet site of the 
Commission. 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
the  authorising 

of 
officer : 19.7.2016 

financial audit; 

Declared ineligible costs. 

Case 2016/3 

Date  of  the  Panel 
recommendation: 
15.6. 2016 

Date  of  the  decision 
of 
the  authorising 
officer: 

25.10.2016 

Case 2016/4 

Case  withdrawn  on: 
20.12.2016 

A  patent  allegedly  owned  by  the 
economic  operator  concerned  did 
not exist; 

in 
"Misrepresentation 
supplying 
information 
the 
required  by  the  authorising 
officer". 

Exclusion  for  a  period 
of 3 years. 

Not recommended.  

Alleged  existence  of  another  linked 
entity did not exist. 

The  grant  beneficiary 
received 
subsidies  based  on  declaration  of 
overestimated unit costs (average v. 
actual); 

Declaration of ineligible costs.  

Not 
withdrawn 
officer. 

applicable, 
by 

case 
authorising 

Not  applicable  (case 
withdrawn).  

due 

Not  applicable.  Case 
to 
closed 
by 
withdrawal 
officer.  
authorising 
Application 
of 
contractual measures to 
the 
protect 
EU 
interests  so 
financial 
no 
is 
that 
outstanding  impact  on 
budget 
the 

there 

EU 

10 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Case 2016/5 

Inflation  of  costs  and  unreliable 
recording 
a  grant 
system  of 
beneficiary; 

"Serious 
breaches 
contractual obligations" 

of 

Exclusion  for  a  period 
of 2 years.  

Recommended  based 
on  the  recurrence  of 
the conduct. 

(including). 

Published 
14/06/2017  on 
internet  site  of 
Commission. 

on 
the 
the 

Not  applicable.  Case  closed: 
not 
and 
facts 
established.  

findings 

Not  applicable 
(case 
inadmissible  due  to  the 
non-establishment 
of 
the facts). 

Not  applicable  (case 
to 
inadmissible  due 
the  non-establishment 
of the facts). 

Date  of  the  Panel 
recommendation: 
9.1.2017 

Undeclared subcontracting; 

Date  of  the  decision 
of 
the  authorising 
officer: 

Plagiarism. 

As part of a procurement procedure, 
the  evaluation  Committee  identified 
2  tenders  (consortia)  with  identical 
parts 
to  certain 
in 
questions; 

replies 

the 

6.3.2017 

Case 2016/6  

(up  to  9  economic 
operators  potentially 
concerned) 

Panel  reply  to  the 
requesting 
authorising 
on 23.6.2016 

officer 

Case 2016/7/a 

Potential  alleged  plagiarism  made 
by  one  of  the  consortia  and/or  the 
companies of this consortium. 

Three  beneficiaries  of  grants  were 
involved  in  a  fraudulent  scheme 
intermediary  company, 
with  an 

"Serious 
contractual obligations".  

breaches 

of 

Recommendation  not 
to 
by 
exclude 
application  of  remedial 

applicable 
Not 
(recommendation  not 
to sanction – remedial 

11 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
legal  qualification  of 
The 
fraud  has  not  been  retained 
since  the  competent  national 
authorities  closed  the  judicial 
proceedings. 

Case 2016/7/bis 

Case 2016/7/ter 

while  all  of  them  were  owned  or 
controlled  by 
the  same  natural 
person. 

The  mechanism  resulted  in  inflated 
costs claimed in the EU projects. 

economic 

(3 
operators 
concerned) 

Date  of  the  Panel 
recommendations: 
28.2.2017 (a)  

16.3.2017 
ter) 

(bis  and 

measures  sufficient  to 
ensure 
the  economic 
operators' liability:  

measures). 

- no financial prejudice 
remained  due  to  the 
reimbursement  of  all 
funds  in  the  perimeter 
established 
of 
serious 
of 
contractual obligations;  

breach 

the 

-  no  use  of 
fraudulent 
since 2007. 

the 
scheme 

Case 2016/8/a 

Case 2016/8/bis  

Attempts of 2 economic operators to 
influence 
procurement 
evaluation procedure. 

the 

"Grave 
misconduct" 

professional 

Exclusion  of  each  of 
the 
economic 
operators for 1 year. 

2 

Not recommended. 

economic 

(2 
operators 
concerned) 

Date  of  the  Panel 

12 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
recommendations  (a 
and bis): 28.3.2017 

Date  of  the  decision 
of 
the  authorising 
officer  (a  and  bis): 
11.04.2017 

Case 2016/9 

Date  of  the  Panel 
recommendation: 
9.1.2017 

Date  of  the  decision 
of 
the  authorising 
officer: 

7.3.2017 

As  part  of  a  contract  of  works,  the 
contractor  concerned  did  not  fulfil 
its  obligations  in  the  deadline  set 
(extended several times),  it resulted 
in the termination of the contract; 

"Serious 
contractual obligations". 

breaches 

of 

Exclusion of 2 years.  

guarantee 

contractor 

submitted 
of 

a 
The 
a 
performance 
guarantor  blacklisted  by  the  central 
national central bank. The guarantor 
went bankrupt and the contractor did 
not  replace  the  guarantee,  despite 
being required to do so. 

Case 2016/10a 

Case 2016/10bis 

report  on 

Submission  of 
the 
implementation  of  the  action  which 
did  not  reflect  reality  (by  the  1st  
economic operator concerned only); 

breach 
and 

of 
"Serious 
obligations" 
"grave 
professional  misconduct"  (1st 
economic operator) 

Exclusion  for  2  years 
(1st economic operator) 

13 

Recommended  based 
the  misleading 
on 
the 
of 
depiction 
solvability 
the 
of 
contractor  due  to  the 
its 
default 
guarantor. 

of 

to 

Publication  postponed 
legal  action 
due 
introduced 
the 
by 
operator. 

Recommended for the 
first 
economic 
operator 
recommended  based 
distinct 
on 

two 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
economic 

(2 
operators 
concerned) 

procurement 
Non-compliant 
inflation  of  staff 
procedure  and 
the  1st  
expenses  claimed  (  by 
economic operator concerned only); 

"Grave 
professional 
misconduct  linked  to  breach 
of  procurement  procedure" 
(2nd economic operator) 

grounds of exclusion. 

Yet to be published on 
the internet site. 

Submission  of  fake  documents  to 
(2nd  economic  operator 
auditors 
only). 

Exclusion  for  1  year 
(2nd economic operator 

Not  recommended  for 
the second operator. 

Date  of  the  Panel 
recommendations:  

6.2.2017 (a) 

24.3.2017 (bis) 

Date  of  the  decision 
the  authorising 
of 
officer: 

24/03/2017 (a) 

16/05/2017 (bis) 

Case 2016/11 

Auditors  prevented  to  perform  a 
financial audit; 

"Serious 
breaches 
contractual obligations" 

of 

Exclusion for 3 years. 

Recommended  based 
on:  

Date  of  the  Panel 
recommendation: 
25.1.2017 

Non-completion  of  work 
to  be 
performed  in  the  context  of  a  grant 
agreement  and  non-participation  in 
the 
the  meetings 

concerning 

14 

-  serious  breaches  of 
contractual 
obligations 
distinct 
agreements  

two 
grant 

in 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Date  of  the  decision 
of 
the  authorising 
officer:  

05.04.2017 

Case 2016/12 

Reply of the Panel to 
requesting 
the 
authorising 
officer 
on 2.2.2017 

Case 2016/13 

Date  of  the  Panel 
recommendation: 
24/05/2017 

supervision, 
evaluation of the project. 

monitoring 

and 

- refusal of audit. 

Yet to be published on 
the internet site  

Irregularity  consisted  in  conclusion 
of  a  contract  with  another  company 
for assistance in the preparation of a 
tender and falsification of document. 
This  company  irregularly  obtained 
the  Terms  of  Reference  of  the 
Contract prior publication. 

"Grave 
misconduct".  

professional 

State  of  play  on  the 
further  implication  of 
the  alleged  fraudulent 
scheme  and  companies 
involved 
be 
presented. 

to 

applicable, 
Not 
awaiting  state  of  play 
of  further  implication 
companies 
and 
involved. 

the  beneficiary's 
Unreliability  of 
time  recording  system,  declaration 
of non-incurred costs;  

breaches 

of 
"serious 
contractual  obligations  and 
grave 
professional 
misconduct" 

Exclusion for 2,5 years 

Not recommended. 

Lack of operational capacity; 

Date  of  the  decision 
the  authorising 
of 
officer:  

Irregular subcontracting;  

Unjustified  payments  to  a  foreign 

15 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
29/06/2017 

bank  account  of  a  company  led  by 
the same director. 

Case 2016/14 

Panel 
30.06.2017 

reply: 

Unreliability  of 
time  recording  system, 
information 
regard to non-EU projects;  

the  beneficiary's 
lack  of 
timesheets  with 

in 

Declaration of non-incurred costs;  

"serious 
contractual obligations" 

breaches 

of 

Case  closed:  Company 
dissolved. 

Not 
company dissolved. 

applicable, 

had 

transactions,  with 

Identified 
a 
separate  company,  to  which  the 
a 
operator 
significant  part  of  the  pre-financing 
it had  received, raising doubts as  to 
the actual work of the beneficiary in 
the project. 

transferred 

Case 2016/15 

Inaccurate time recording; 

"serious 
contractual obligations" 

breaches 

of 

Exclusion of 2 years  

Not recommended. 

Date  of  the  Panel 
recommendation:  

Irregular subcontracting;   

26/04/2017 

Unreliable  travel  and  subsistence 
costs;  

16 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Date  of  the  decision 
of 
the  authorising 
officer:  

21/06/2017 

Case 2016/16 

Date  of  the  Panel 
recommendation:  

26/04/2017 

Date  of  the  decision 
of 
the  authorising 
officer:  

15/06/2017 

Personal 
manager 

involvement 

of 

the 

No audit could be performed due to 
the  absence  of  reply  to  letter  of 
announcement  of  audit  and  several 
attempt to reach the operator; 

Contested  payment  of  part  of  pre-
financing  by  the  grant  coordinator; 
proof of payment was submitted and 
no reply was provided.   

"serious 
contractual obligations" 

breaches 

of 

Exclusion of 2 years  

Recommended  based 
on refusal of audit. 

Case 2016/19 

Date  of  the  Panel 
recommendation: 

of 

Unreliable  time  recording  system; 
lack 
evidence 
alternative 
supporting  the  claimed  personnel 
costs;  

Non-compliance  with  the  specific 
in-house 
eligibility  criteria 

for 

breaches 
"serious 
contractual obligations" 

of 

Exclusion of 18 months  Not  applicable,  facts 
before 
rules 

committed 
publication 
entered into force. 

17 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
28/06/2016 

consultants;  

Absence  of  costs  recorded  in  the 
contractor's 
loss 
profit 
statement.  

and 

Case 2017/02 

judgement 

concerning 
Final 
agreement with other operators with 
the aim of distorting competition  

No  preliminary  classification: 
the limitation period lapsed. 

No recommendation.  

Not applicable. 

Remedial measures. 

Case 2017/04 

Lack  of  preventive  measures  to 
avoid  conflict  of  interest  and  late 
disclosure. 

No preliminary classification.  

Case withdrawn. 

No 
recommendation. 
Case  withdrawn  by 
Officer 
Authorising 
based 
further 
on 
analysis.  

Not  applicable  (case 
withdrawn) 

18 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
   
Annex 2 
Number of Panel cases received 
01/01/2016 - 30/06/2017 
(accumulated figures) 

 
 
Sanctions recommended by the Panel 
01/01/2016 - 30/06/2017 

Panel cases classified per category of sources 
01/01/2016 - 30/06/2017 

20 

 
 
 
 
 
Panel cases classified per spending area 
01/01/2016 - 30/06/2017 

21