REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL 29th Annual Report on the Protection of the European Union’s financial interests — Fight against fraud - 2017
Date: 2018-09-03
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

EN 

  EN 

   EUROPEAN COMMISSION  Brussels, 3.9.2018  COM(2018) 553 final  REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL 29th Annual Report on the Protection of the European Union’s financial interests — Fight against fraud - 2017     {SWD(2018) 381 final} - {SWD(2018) 382 final} - {SWD(2018) 383 final} - {SWD(2018) 384 final} - {SWD(2018) 385 final} - {SWD(2018) 386 final}  
 
 
 
TABLE OF CONTENTS 

REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL 
29th annual report on the protection of the European Union’s financial interests and the fight 
against fraud (2017) 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .................................................................................................................... 5 

1. 

INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................ 7 

2.  HARMONISING AND REINFORCING THE FIGHT AGAINST FRAUD ACROSS THE 
EU: CROSS-CUTTING ANTI-FRAUD POLICIES, MEASURES AND RESULTS ...................... 7 

2.1. 

A new legal landscape: legislative acts adopted by the EU institutions.................................... 7 
2.1.1.  Directive on the fight against fraud to the EU’s financial interests by means of criminal law ..... 7 
2.1.2.  Regulation implementing enhanced cooperation on the establishment of EPPO ......................... 8 

2.2. 

Shaping the future: European institutions’ legislative and policy initiatives .......................... 9 
2.2.1.  Evaluation of Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 883/2013 ................................................................... 9 
2.2.2. 
Fighting corruption in the EU ............................................................................................................ 9 
2.2.3.  Proposal to revise the Financial Regulation and certain sectoral financial rules (Omnibus) .... 10 
2.2.4. 
International cooperation ................................................................................................................ 10 
2.2.5.  Commission Anti-Fraud Strategy (CAFS) ....................................................................................... 11 
Implementation of the Hercule programme................................................................................... 11 
2.2.6. 

2.3. 

CJEU jurisprudence ..................................................................................................................... 11 
2.3.1. 
Limitation periods: the Alytaus and Glencore cases ...................................................................... 12 
2.3.2.  VAT: the M.A.S. case .......................................................................................................................... 12 

2.4. 

Measures taken by Member States ............................................................................................ 12 
Summary ........................................................................................................................................... 12 
National anti-fraud strategies (NAFS) ........................................................................................ 12 
Public procurement and corruption .......................................................................................... 12 
Other measures ............................................................................................................................ 13 
Implementation of 2016 recommendations ................................................................................... 13 

2.4.1. 
2.4.1.1. 
2.4.1.2. 
2.4.1.3. 
2.4.2. 

2.5. 

Summary of statistics concerning detected irregularities and fraud ..................................... 14 
2.5.1.  Detected fraudulent irregularities .................................................................................................. 15 
2.5.2.  Detected and reported non-fraudulent irregularities ................................................................... 15 
2.5.3.  OLAF investigations ......................................................................................................................... 16 

3.  ANTI-FRAUD POLICIES, MEASURES AND RESULTS — REVENUE .......................... 17 

3.1. 

EU institutions’ anti-fraud measures – revenue ....................................................................... 17 
3.1.1.  Mutual administrative assistance ................................................................................................... 17 
Implementation of Article 43b of Regulation (EC) No 515/97 ................................................ 17 
3.1.1.1. 
Anti-Fraud Information System (AFIS) ...................................................................................... 17 
3.1.1.2. 
3.1.1.3. 
Joint customs operations (JCOs) ................................................................................................. 18 
3.1.2.  Mutual assistance and anti-fraud provisions in international agreements ................................. 19 
Fight against illicit trade in tobacco products ................................................................................ 19 
3.1.3. 
Fight against VAT fraud ................................................................................................................... 19 
3.1.4. 

3.2. 

Member States’ anti-fraud measures – revenue ....................................................................... 20 

3.3. 

Statistics on detected irregularities and fraud – revenue ....................................................... 20 
3.3.1.  Detected fraudulent irregularities .................................................................................................. 20 

2 

 
 
 
3.3.2.  Detected and reported non-fraudulent irregularities ................................................................... 21 

4.  SECTORAL ANTI-FRAUD POLICIES, MEASURES AND RESULTS — EXPENDITURE

21 

4.1. 
sectors 21 

Member States’ sectoral anti-fraud policies and measures involving several expenditure 

4.2. 

Agriculture — sectoral anti-fraud policies, measures and results ......................................... 21 
4.2.1.  Agriculture — Member States’ anti-fraud measures ..................................................................... 21 
4.2.2.  Agriculture — statistics on detected irregularities and fraud ...................................................... 21 
Detected fraudulent irregularities .............................................................................................. 21 
4.2.2.1. 
Detected and reported non-fraudulent irregularities ............................................................... 22 
4.2.2.2. 

4.3. 

Cohesion policy and fisheries — sectoral anti-fraud policies, measures and results ........... 23 
4.3.1.  Cohesion policy and fisheries — Member States’ anti-fraud measures ....................................... 23 
4.3.2.  Cohesion policy and fisheries — statistics on detected irregularities and fraud ........................ 24 
Detected fraudulent irregularities .............................................................................................. 24 
4.3.2.1. 
Detected and reported non-fraudulent irregularities ............................................................... 25 
4.3.2.2. 

4.4. 

Indirect management (pre-accession) — sectoral anti-fraud policies, measures and results
25 

4.4.1. 

Indirect management (pre-accession) — statistics on detected irregularities and fraud .......... 25 

4.5. 

Direct management — sectoral anti-fraud policies, measures and results ........................... 25 
4.5.1.  Direct management — statistics on detected irregularities and fraud ........................................ 25 
Detected fraudulent irregularities .............................................................................................. 25 
4.5.1.1. 
Detected and reported non-fraudulent irregularities ............................................................... 25 
4.5.1.2. 

5.  RECOVERY AND OTHER PREVENTIVE AND CORRECTIVE MEASURES ................ 26 

6.  COOPERATION WITH THE MEMBER STATES .............................................................. 26 

7.  EARLY DETECTION AND EXCLUSION SYSTEM ............................................................. 26 

8.  FOLLOW-UP TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT RESOLUTION ON THE 2016 
ANNUAL REPORT ........................................................................................................................... 27 

9.  CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS .................................................................... 27 

9.1. 

Revenue ....................................................................................................................................... 27 

9.2. 

Expenditure ................................................................................................................................. 28 

9.3. 

Cooperation at all levels ............................................................................................................. 29 

ANNEX 1 — IRREGULARITIES REPORTED AS FRAUDULENT IN 2017 ......................... 30 

ANNEX 2 — IRREGULARITIES NOT REPORTED AS FRAUDULENT IN 2017 ................ 31 

ANNEX 3 — LIST OF ACCOMPANYING STAFF WORKING DOCUMENTS ....................... 32 

3 

 
 
 
 
 
Table of figures 

FIGURE 1: LEGISLATIVE HIGHLIGHTS - 2017 ................................................................................................................ 8 
FIGURE 2: COURT OF JUSTICE JURISPRUDENCE ON PIF RELATED MATTERS - 2017 ......................................................... 12 
FIGURE 3: IRREGULARITIES REPORTED AS FRAUDULENT IN 2017 ................................................................................. 14 
FIGURE 4: IRREGULARITIES REPORTED AS FRAUDULENT AND THEIR RELATED AMOUNTS, 2013-2017 ............................ 15 
FIGURE 5: IRREGULARITIES NOT REPORTED AS FRAUDULENT IN 2017 .......................................................................... 16 
FIGURE 6: ONGOING INVESTIGATIONS AT THE END OF 2017, DIVIDED BY SECTOR ................................................................... 16 
FIGURE 7: POLICY HIGHLIGHTS IN THE REVENUE AREAS ............................................................................................... 17 
FIGURE 8: JOINT CUSTOMS OPERATIONS IN 2017 ............................................................................................................ 18 
FIGURE 9: MOST SIGNIFICANT PATTERNS EMERGING FROM THE ANALYSIS OF IRREGULARITIES DETECTED AND REPORTED IN 

2017 ............................................................................................................................................................ 20 
FIGURE 10: MAIN FACTS AND FIGURES CONCERNING AGRICULTURAL POLICY .................................................................. 22 
FIGURE 11: MARKET MEASURES MOST AFFECTED BY IRREGULARITIES (FRAUDULENT AND NON-FRAUDULENT) .............................. 22 
FIGURE 12: MAIN FACTS AND FIGURES CONCERNING THE COHESION AND FISHERIES POLICIES .................................................... 23 
FIGURE 13: FOCUS ON PP 2007-13.............................................................................................................................. 24 
FIGURE 14: STRUCTURE OF COCOLAF AND ITS SUBGROUPS .............................................................................................. 25 

4 

 
 
 
 
 
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

financial 

The 2017 annual report on the Protection of the 
European  Union’s 
(PIF 
Report)  is  presented  by  the  Commission  in 
cooperation  with  the  Member  States  under 
Article  325  of  the  Treaty  on  the  Functioning  of 
the European Union (TFEU). 

interests 

Two major legislative achiements 

In  2017,  two  major 
legislative  acts  were 
adopted,  which  will  enhance  convergence 
towards  an  effective  and  equivalent  level  of 
protection of the EU budget, in particular against 
cross-border fraud: 

 

 

the  Directive  on  the  fight  against  fraud  to 
the  EU’s  financial  interests  by  means  of 
criminal law (so called "PIF Directive") 
the  Regulation 
implementing  enhanced 
cooperation  on  the  establishment  of  the 
European Public Prosecutor’s Office (EPPO). 

The  adoption  of  these  two  acts  follows  several 
years  of  negotiations  and  is  testimony  to  the 
European  institutions’  and  the  Member  States’ 
commitment 
fraud 
the 
detrimental to the Union’s financial interests. 

fight  against 

to 

Legislative and policy initiatives 

These  acts  will  require  the  adaptation  of  the 
current  anti-fraud  set-up  in  order  to  ensure 
effective 
competent 
coordination  between 
bodies and authorities. 

This work will continue for the next few years, in 
particular  in  relation  to  the  preparation  of  the 
legal 
the  2021-2027 
multiannual financial framework.  

framework  governing 

The  first  step  was  the  evaluation  of  Regulation 
(EU,  Euratom)  No 883/2013  (OLAF  mandate 
and  powers),  which  highlighted  the  results  it 
had  achieved  but  also  its  shortcomings  in  view 
of the establishment of EPPO. 

In 2017, the Commission also: 

 

continued  its  regular  exercise  of  assessing 
developments  and  addressing 
country 
specific recommendations to Member States 
in relation to the fight against corruption in 
the  framework  of  the  European  Semester 
process; 

  made 

a 

available 

of 
the  Hercule III 
to  boost  Member  States’ 

EUR 14.95 million 
programme 
operational and administrative capacity; 

budget 

via 

 

 

successfully 
provisions 
agreements; and 

in 

negotiated 
the  EU’s 

anti-fraud 
international 

launched  an  evaluation  of  the  Commission 
Anti-Fraud Strategy with a view to updating 
it. 

CJEU jurisprudence 

In  2017,  three  rulings  by  the  Court  of  Justice  of 
the  European  Union  (CJEU)  added  to  the 
jurisprudence  concerning  the  protection  of  the 
EU’s  financial  interests.  Two  of  them  (in  the 
Alytaus  and  Glencore  cases)  dealt  with  issues 
relating  to  periods  of  limitation,  while  the  third 
(M.A.S.  and  M.B.)  related  to  VAT,  in  particular 
clarifying some aspects of the Taricco judgment. 

Highlights in the revenue areas 

The  Commission  adopted  a  legislative  proposal 
to make the EU VAT system simpler, more fraud-
proof and close loopholes in cross-border trade 
by  strengthening  administrative  cooperation 
instruments  between  tax  authorites  and  with 
other law enforcement authorities. 

Mutual  assistance  agreements  were  concluded 
with  Mercosur  and  Azerbaijan.  The  anti-fraud 
clause was  successfully incorporated in the free 
trade agreement with Japan. 

OLAF coordinated or supported 11 joint customs 
operations  that  successfully  targeted  various 
threats,  such  as  cigarette  smuggling,  revenue 
fraud, 
cash 
movements and narcotics. 

counterfeit 

products, 

illicit 

In  financial  terms,  imported  solar  panels  were 
fraud  and 
the  goods  most  affected  by 
irregularities.  In  many  instances,  irregularities 
involving solar panels were detected following a 
Mutual Assistance notice issued by OLAF. 

An  infringement  procedure  was  launched  in 
relation  to  undervaluation  affecting  traditional 
and  VAT  own  resources  revenue  that  had  been 
detected in the United Kingdom. 

Highlights in the expenditure areas 

The  Omnibus  Regulation  promotes 
the 
simplification and clarification of financial rules. 
In  2017,  the  provisions  relating  to  agriculture 
were  adopted,  while  the  draft  changes  to  the 
remaining  expenditure  sectors  should  be 
adopted in 2018. 

The  Advisory  Committee  for  Coordination  of 
Fraud Prevention (COCOLAF) prepared guidance 

5 

 
 
 
State.  This  number  reflects  the  results  of 
Member States’ work to counter fraud and other 
illegal  activities  affecting  the  EU’s  financial 
interests.  The  figures  should  not  be  interpreted 
as  indicating  the  level  of  fraud  in  the  Member 
States’ territories. 

on  red  flags  and  best  practices 
procurement and irregularity reporting. 

in  public 

Analysis  of 
fraudulent  and  non-fraudulent 
irregularities detected and reported  by  national 
authorities  confirmed  the  2016  findings  as 
regards the main sectors at risk.  

It  also  highlighted  detection  methods  that  have 
helped  in  the  identification  and  targeting  of 
of 
and  non-fraudulent 
fraudulent 
significant  financial  value.  These  involve  risk 
analysis,  tips  from  informants,  whistleblowing 
and information from the media.  

cases 

The  same  analysis  also  points  to  the  positive 
results  achieved  through  closer  coordination 
between judicial and administrative authorities. 

the  basis  of 

On 
findings,  specific 
these 
recommendations  are  addressed  to  national 
authorities to structure and make systematic use 
of inputs from the above sources. 

Member States’ anti-fraud measures  

Member  States  reported  the  adoption  of  73 
major  measures  to  protect  the  EU’s  financial 
interests and fight fraud. These cover the entire 
anti-fraud  cycle,  but  focus  in  particular  on 
detection and prevention. They relate mainly to 
the control of funds under shared management. 

The  majority  of  Member  States  reported  on  the 
number  and  nature  of  measures  taken  as 
follow-up  to  the  2016  recommendations;  this 
can  be  considered  positive,  but  there  is  still 
room for improvement. 

Detection  and  reporting  of  fraudulent  and 
non-fraudulent  irregularities  that  affect  the 
EU budget 

In  2017,  a  total  of  15 213  fraudulent  and 
non-fraudulent  irregularities  were  reported  to 
the  Commission,  20.8 %  fewer  than  in  2016. 
They  involved  approximately  EUR 2.58 billion, 
8.6 % down from the previous year. 

The  1 146  irregularities  reported  as  fraudulent 
involved  about  EUR  467  million  of  expenditure 
or revenue. 

The  detection  of  an  irregularity  implies  that 
corrective measures have been taken in order to 
recover the irregular financial amounts involved 
that  criminal  proceedings  have  been 
and 
launched if fraud is suspected. 

Annex  1  shows  the  number  of  irregularities 
reported  as  fraudulent  detected  by  Member 

6 

 
 
 
 
 
1. 

INTRODUCTION 

Each  year,  under  Article 325(5)  TFEU,  the 
Commission,  in  cooperation  with  the  Member 
States,  submits  a  report  to  the  European 
Parliament  and  the  Council  on  measures  taken 
to  counter  fraud  and  other  illegal  activities 
affecting the EU’s financial interests. 

the  Member  States 

The  EU  and 
share 
responsibility  for  protecting  the  EU’s  financial 
interests  and  fighting  fraud.  Member  State 
authorities  manage  approximately  74 %  of  EU 
expenditure 
traditional  own 
collect 
resources (TOR). The Commission oversees both 
these  areas,  sets  standards  and  verifies 
compliance.  To  protect 
financial 
interests  effectively,  the  Commission  and  the 
Member States have to work closely together.  

the  EU’s 

and 

This  report  assesses  this  cooperation  with  a 
view to improving it; to this end, it: 

  provides  a  summary  of  measures  taken  at 
EU and Member State level to counter fraud;  

 

includes  an  analysis  of  national  and 
European  bodies’  main  achievements  in 
detecting fraud and irregularities relating to 
EU  expenditure  and  revenue.  This  is  based 
in  particular  on  detected  irregularities  and 
fraud  reported  by  the  Member  States  in 
compliance with sectoral regulations.  

The  report  is  accompanied  by  six  Commission 
Staff Working Documents (SWD), listed in Annex 
3.1 

2.  HARMONISING  AND  REINFORCING  THE  FIGHT 
EU: 
POLICIES, 

ACROSS 
ANTI-FRAUD 

AGAINST 
CROSS-CUTTING 
MEASURES AND RESULTS 

FRAUD 

THE 

2.1.  A  new  legal  landscape:  legislative  acts 

adopted by the EU institutions 

In recent years, the Commission has underlined 
authorities’ 
the 

differences 

national 

in 

1 

(i)  Implementation  of  Article 325  by  the Member  States 
in 2017; 
(ii)  Statistical  evaluation  of  irregularities  reported  for 
own  resources,  natural  resources,  cohesion  policy  and 
pre-accession assistance and direct expenditure;  
(iii)  Follow-up  of  recommendations  to  the  Commission 
report on the protection of the EU’s financial interests — 
fight against fraud, 2016;  
(iv)  Early  Detection  and  Exclusion  System  (EDES)  —  Panel 
referred  to  in  Article 108  of  the  Financial  Regulation; 

(v)  Annual  overview  with  information  on  the  results  of 
the Hercule III Programme in 2017; and 
(vi) Assessment  of the implementation of Article 43b of 
Regulation (EC) No 515/97. 

7 

the 

approaches  to  fighting  fraud  and  irregularities 
interests. 
affecting 
Investigations by the European Anti-Fraud Office 
(OLAF) have shown the increasing occurrence of 
transnational fraud cases.  

financial 

EU’s 

Two  major  legislative acts adopted  in  2017  will 
ensure  convergence  towards  an  effective  and 
equivalent  level  of  protection  of  the  EU  budget, 
in particular against cross-border fraud: 

1. 

2. 

the  Directive  on  the  fight  against  fraud  to 
the  EU’s  financial  interests  by  means  of 
criminal law (the PIF Directive);2 and 
implementing  enhanced 
the  Regulation 
cooperation  on  the  establishment  of  the 
European 
Prosecutor’s  Office 
(EPPO).3 

Public 

The  adoption  of  these  two  acts  follows  several 
years  of  negotiations  and  is  testimony  to  the 
European  institutions’  and  the  Member  States’ 
commitment 
fraud 
the 
detrimental to the Union’s financial interests. 

fight  against 

to 

2.1.1.  Directive  on  the  fight  against  fraud  to  the 
interests  by  means  of 

financial 

EU’s 
criminal law 

The  Directive  replaces  the  1995  Convention  on 
the  protection  of  the  European  Communities’ 
financial  interests  and  its  protocols  (the  PIF 
Convention)4 for the 26 Member States bound by 
it.  The  PIF  Convention  remains  applicable  to 
Denmark and the UK. 

2   Directive  (EU)  2017/1371  of  the  European  Parliament 
and  of  the  Council  of  5  July  2017  on  the  fight  against 
fraud  to  the  Union's  financial  interests  by  means  of 
criminal law, OJ L 198, 28.7.2017, p. 29–41.  

3   Council Regulation (EU) 2017/1939 of 12 October 2017 
implementing 
the 
establishment of the European Public Prosecutor’s Office 
('the EPPO') (OJ L 283, 31.10.2017, p. 1). 
Council Act of 26 July (OJ C 316, 27.11.1995, p. 48). 

cooperation 

enhanced 

on 

4 

 
 
 
                                                 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
Figure 1:  

Legislative highlights – 2017 

The PIF Directive: 

• harmonises the definitions, sanctions and 
applicable time limitations of criminal 
offences affecting the Union's financial 
interests, including fraud, corruption, 
money laundering and misappropriation; 
• applies to cross-border VAT fraud cases 
involving total damage of at least EUR 10 
million; 
• sets two years for transposition (by 6 July 
2019). 

The European Public Prosecutor's Office 
(EPPO) 

• set up through enhanced cooperation (initially 
20 Member States); 
• its establishment was one of the Commission's 
key priorities in the area of criminal justice and 
part of the overall strategy to combat fraud 
against the EU budget; 
• competent for investigating, prosecuting and 
bringing to justice criminal offences affecting 
the financial interests of the Union, as 
provided by the "PIF Directive"; 
• expected to bring a more consistent and 
effective prosecution policy for crimes 
affecting the EU budget: higher number of 
prosecutions, convictions and a greater level of 
recoveries.  

2.1.2.  Regulation 

implementing 

enhanced 

cooperation on the establishment of EPPO 

Participating Member States: 

Other Member States may join in the future.5 

5   http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-17-1550_en.htm  

The  Netherlands  (14  May 2018)  and  Malta  (14  June  2018) 
have formally notified the Commission of their intention to 

join the EPPO and, in accordance with article 331 TFEU, the 
Commission is currently preparing the Decisions confiming 
the participation of these Member States. 

8 

 
 
 
 
                                                 
 
 
 
 
                                                                           
2.2.  Shaping  the  future:  European  institutions’ 

legislative and policy initiatives  

to 

the 

set-up 

anti-fraud 

The  new  acts  will  require  the  adaptation  of  the 
current 
latest 
developments  in  order  to  ensure  the  necessary 
coordination  between  the  competent  bodies  and 
authorities.  This  work  will  continue  over  the  next 
few  years, 
the 
preparation  of  the  legal  framework  governing  the 
2021-2027 Multiannual Financial Framework . 

in  particular 

in  relation 

to 

The  next  section  provides  an  overview  of  major 
developments  as  regards  Commission  policy  and 
legislative initiatives in 2017. 

2.2.1.  Evaluation  of  Regulation  (EU,  Euratom) 

No 883/2013 

Regulation  (EU,  Euratom)  No 883/20136  is  the 
centrepiece  of  the  legal  framework  governing 
OLAF’s  mandate 
conduct  administrative 
investigations  into  fraud,  corruption  and  other 
illegal activity affecting the EU’s financial interests. 

to 

On  2  October  2017,  pursuant  to  Article 19  of  the 
Regulation,  the  Commission  adopted  a  report  on 
the evaluation of its application.7 

The  evaluation  concludes  that  the  Regulation  has 
allowed  OLAF  to  fulfil  its  mandate  with  concrete 
results,  bringing  clear  improvements  as  regards 
the  conduct  of  investigations,  cooperation  with 
partners  and  the  rights  of  persons  concerned.  At 
the  same  time,  it  highlights  some  shortcomings 
that  impact  on  the  effectiveness  and  efficiency  of 
OLAF’s investigations. These relate, inter alia, to: 

 

 

OLAF’s investigative tools;  

the enforcement of OLAF’s powers;  

6   Regulation  (EU,  Euratom)  No  883/2013  of  the  European 
Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  11  September  2013 
concerning 
investigations  conducted  by  the  European 
Anti-Fraud  Office  (OLAF)  and  repealing  Regulation  (EC) 
No 1073/1999  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the 
Council  and  Council  Regulation  (Euratom)  No 1074/1999 
(OJ L 248, 18.9.2013, p. 1). 

7   Report  from  the  Commission  to  the  European  Parliament 
and  the  Council  on  Evaluation  of  the  application  of 
Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 883/2013 (COM(2017) 589);   
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-
content/EN/TXT/?uri=COM:2017:589:FIN  
and the accompanying SWD(2017) 332; 
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-
content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=SWD:2017:332:FIN&from=EN. 
The  report  was  supported  by  an  independent  study 
(Evaluation  of  the  application  of  Regulation  (EU,  Euratom) 
No 883/2013  concerning  investigations  conducted  by  the 
European Anti-Fraud Office ) and based on a wide-ranging 
stakeholder consultation, including a conference involving 
about 250 participants from a broad range of stakeholder 
groups.  It  was  also  accompanied  by  OLAF’s  Supervisory 
Committee Opinion 2/2017; 
http://europa.eu/supervisory-committee-
olaf/sites/default/files/opinion_2_2017.pdf). 

9 

 

 

uniform  conditions  in  the  conduct  of  internal 
institutions,  bodies, 
investigations 
offices and agencies;  

in  EU 

divergences 
recommendations;  

in 

the 

follow-up 

to  OLAF 

  Member  States’  and  EU  institutions’,  bodies’, 
offices’ and agencies’ duties of cooperation;  

 

 

 

the  overall  coherence  of  the  legal  framework 
applicable to OLAF investigations;  

the  possibility  of  accessing  bank  account 
information; and 

the  clarity  of  OLAF’s  mandate  in  the  area  of 
VAT. 

In  relation  to  the  establishment  of  EPPO  (see 
section 2.1)  and  its  impact  on  OLAF’s  work,  the 
evaluation  clearly  acknowledges  the  need  to 
further  regulate  the  relationship  between  the  two 
bodies  and  calls  for  swift  adaptations  to  OLAF’s 
operation to ensure that the legal framework is fit 
for purpose. 

to  amend 

The  Commission  adopted  on  23  May  2018  a 
targeted  proposal 
the  Regulation, 
primarily driven by the establishment of the EPPO, 
while  also  addressing  the  most  unambiguous 
findings  of  the  evaluation  to  ensure  that  OLAF 
remains  a  strong  and  fully-functioning  partner  to 
the EPPO. 

of 

exchange 

The  EPPO  Regulation  already  contains  provisions 
to  regulate  the  relationship  between  EPPO  and 
OLAF.  These  are  based  on  the  principles  of  close 
cooperation, 
information, 
complementarity and avoidance of duplication. The 
rules  need  to  be  mirrored  and  complemented  by 
amendments 
(EU,  Euratom) 
the  overall  objective  of 
No 883/2013,  with 
strengthening  the  fight  against  fraud  affecting  the 
Union  budget  through  an  integrated  policy  under 
which  a  strong  and  fully  functioning  OLAF  carries 
out  administrative  investigations  to  complement 
EPPO’s criminal law approach.  

to  Regulation 

The  focus  is  on  areas  in  which  the  Regulation 
currently  gives  rise  to  significant  divergences  in 
the way OLAF operates across Member States, such 
as  on-the-spot  checks  and  inspections,  access  to 
bank  account  information  and  assistance  from 
national authorities. 

2.2.2.  Fighting corruption in the EU 

In 2017 the fight against corruption was a priority 
in  the  European  Semester  process  of  economic 

 
 
 
                                                 
 
 
 
governance.  Several  Country  Reports8  included  an 
assesment  of  the  anti-corruption  legal,  policy  and 
institutional  landscape,  including  progress  and 
remaining challenges. 

proposal12  for  a  comprehensive  and  ambitious 
the  Financial  Regulation13  and 
revision  of 
corresponding  changes  to  the  sectoral  financial 
rules for a variety of multiannual programmes.  

that 

they 

States 

also 
take  action 

received 
Several  Member 
recommendations9 
to 
improve  transparency,  enhance  prevention  of 
conflicts  of  interests,  fight  informal  payments  in 
healthcare  or  step  up  anti-corruption  efforts  in 
public  administration,  the  judiciary  and  public 
procurement.  

administrations, 

In  the  framework  of  the  EU  anti-corruption 
experience-sharing  programme,  the  Commission 
organised  three  experience-sharing  worksops  in 
2017,  gathering 
  around  100  anti-corruption 
practitioners  and  experts  from  Member  States 
international 
national 
organisations,  civil  society,  academia  and  other 
facilitated  the 
stakeholders.  These  workshops 
exchange  of  best-practices 
following 
the 
in 
indicators 
areas: 
thematic 
(Brussels,  March  2017),  conflicts  of  interests  and 
revolving  doors  (Barcelona,  June  2017),  and  the 
economic 
(Brussels, 
December 2017). 

anti-corruption 

impact  of 

corruption, 

A  call  for  proposals10  for  projects  designed  to 
prevent  and  combat  corruption  in  the  Member 
States was launched in December 2017, with a total 
value of MEUR 2.2.  

The Commission and OLAF participated actively in 
several European and international anti-corruption 
fora, such as the United Nations Convention against 
Corruption,  the  Organisation  for  Economic  Co-
operation  and  Development,  the  Anti-Corruption 
Working  Group  of  the  G20  and  the  European 
the 
Partners  Against  Corruption 
European 
Against 
Corruption  (EACN).  EACN  adopted  the  Lisbon 
Declaration  of  November  201711  calling  on 
European  decision-makers  to  strengthen  the  fight 
against corruption. 

Contact-Point 

(EPAC)  / 

Network 

2.2.3.  Proposal  to  revise  the  Financial  Regulation 
and certain sectoral financial rules (Omnibus) 

In 2017, the  European Parliament and the Council 
deliberated  on  the  Commission’s  September  2016 

8   https://ec.europa.eu/info/publications/2017-european-

semester-country-reports_en 

9   https://ec.europa.eu/info/publications/2017-european-

semester-country-specific-recommendations-commission-
recommendations_en 
10   ISFP-2017-AG-CORRUPT. 
11   http://www.epac-

eacn.org/downloads/declarations/doc_view/167-lisbon-
declaration-2017 

and 

fraud 

budget 

against 

the  Union’s 

is  aimed  at  modernising  and 
The  proposal 
simplifying 
financial  rules  and 
strengthening  the  systems  in  place  to  protect  the 
EU 
financial 
irregularities.  Inter  alia,  it  tightens  rules  on  tax 
implementing  partners  and 
avoidance  for  EU 
clarifies that the duty to avoid conflicts of interest 
applies to all modes of implementation of EU funds 
(including  at  Member  State  level).  Simplification 
itself  should  cut  the  number  of  errors,  but  also 
increase the impact of the policies and their results 
on the ground.  

In  the  legislative  negotiations,  at  the  Parliament’s 
request, the grounds for the exclusion of unreliable 
recipients  of  EU 
funding  were  strengthened 
further,  notably  with  regard  to  ‘shell  companies’. 
to 
Some  of 
agricultural  policies,  were  enacted  separately  as 
Regulation  (EU)  2017/2393,14  while  it  is  expected 
that 
the 
the  new  Financial  Regulation  and 
amendments to the remaining sectoral rules will be 
adopted in the third quarter of 2018.  

the  proposed  changes,  relating 

2.2.4.  International cooperation 

To combat fraud against the EU budget beyond the 
EU  borders  more  effectively,  the  Commission 

12  Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of 
the  Council  on  the  financial  rules  applicable  to  the  general 
budget  of  the  Union  and  amending  Regulation  (EC) 
No 2012/2002,  Regulations  (EU)  No 1296/2013,  (EU) 
1301/2013,  (EU)  No 1303/2013,  EU  No 1304/2013,  (EU) 
No 1305/2013,  (EU)  No 1306/2013,  (EU)  No 1307/2013, 
(EU) 
(EU) 
(EU) 
No 1316/2013, (EU) No 223/2014,(EU) No 283/2014, (EU) 
No 652/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council 
and Decision No 541/2014/EU of the European Parliament 
and of the Council (COM(2016) 605). 

No 1309/2013, 

No 1308/2013, 

13   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 
(EC,  Euratom) 
No 1605/2002 (OJ L 298, 26.10.2012, p.1), as last amended 
by  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). 

repealing  Council  Regulation 

14   Regulation  (EU)  2017/2393  of  the  European  Parliament 
and  of  the  Council  of  13  December  2017  amending 
Regulations  (EU)  No  1305/2013  on  support  for  rural 
development  by  the  European  Agricultural  Fund  for  Rural 
the 
Development  (EAFRD),  (EU)  No  1306/2013  on 
financing,  management  and  monitoring  of  the  common 
agricultural  policy,  (EU)  No  1307/2013  establishing  rules 
for  direct  payments  to  farmers  under  support  schemes 
within  the  framework  of  the  common  agricultural  policy, 
(EU) No 1308/2013 establishing a common organisation of 
the markets in agricultural products and (EU) No 652/2014 
laying down provisions for the management of expenditure 
relating to the food chain, animal health and animal welfare, 
and relating to plant health and plant reproductive material 
(OJ L 350, 29.12.2017, p. 15). 

10 

 
 
 
                                                 
                                                 
in 
continued  to 
include  anti-fraud  provisions 
in 
agreements  with  non-EU  countries  and 
templates  for  grant  and  delegation  agreements 
with  international  financial  institutions  and  other 
international organisations. 

In  2017,  OLAF  organised  two  events  to  support 
non-EU countries: 

 

 

its  annual  seminar  (held  in  Montenegro),  for 
partner  authorities  in  candidate  and  potential 
candidate  countries,  on  best  practices  in  the 
detection and reporting of fraud; and 

an  anti-fraud  workshop  with  the  participation 
of  all  relevant  anti-fraud  and  anti-corruption 
services  in  Georgia,  to  assit  them  implement 
the  anti-fraud  provisions  in  the  EU-Georgia 
Association Agreement. 

OLAF  also  signed  administrative  cooperation 
arrangements  with  partner  authorities  in  Tunisia 
and Kosovo.15 

2.2.5.  Commission Anti-Fraud Strategy (CAFS) 

The  Commission  is considering  updating the CAFS 
that  was  adopted  on  24 June 2011,16  the  objective 
of  which  is  to  improve    prevention,  detection  and 
investigation of fraud and ensure that appropriate 
sanctioning,  recovery  and  deterrence  are  high  on 
the Commission’s agenda. 

Most CAFS's actions have now been finalised or are 
ongoing.  All  49  Commission  departments  have 
introduced sectoral Anti-Fraud Strategies (AFS) for 
their respective policy areas.  

In 2017, the Commission carried out an evaluation 
of  the  overall  implementation  of  the  CAFS.  The 
evaluation  measures  the  progress  achieved  since 
the adoption of the CAFS in 2011 against the stated 
objectives,  taking  account  of  developments  in 
terms  of  EU  policies  in  the  anti-fraud  landscape, 
corresponding  fraud  risks  and  emerging  fraud 
patterns.  The  results  are  to  serve  as  a  basis  for 
decision making to which extent the CAFS needs to 
be  updated.  The  evaluation  will  cover  the  period 
since  the  adoption  of  the  CAFS  and  assess  its 
relevance, effectiveness, efficiency and coherence. 

2.2.6.  Implementation of the Hercule programme 

The 2014-2020 Hercule III programme17 promotes 
activities  to  counter  fraud,  corruption  and  any 

15   With  Tunisia’s  General  Finance  Inspectorate  and  the 

Kosovo* police, respectively.  
*  This  designation  is  without  prejudice  to  positions  on 
status,  and  is  in  line  with  UNSCR  1244/1999  and  the  ICJ 
Opinion on the Kosovo declaration of independence. 

16  COM(2011) 376 final. 
17  Regulation  (EU)  No 250/2014  of  the  European  Parliament 
and  of  the  Council  of  26 February  2014  establishing  a 

other  illegal  activities  affecting  the  EU’s  financial 
its 
the 
interests. 
implementation, a budget of EUR 14.95 million was 
made available18 for: 

fourth  year  of 

In  2017, 

 

 

funding  actions  to  strengthen  the  operational 
and  technical  capacity  of  customs  and  police 
forces  in  the  Member  States,  and  IT  support 
(75 % of the programme’s budget); and 

training  activities  and  conferences,  including 
digital  forensic  training  for  staff  employed  by 
law  enforcement  agencies  in  the  Member 
States  and  partner  countries  (25 %  of  the 
budget). 

Beneficiaries  of  Hercule 
III  grants  reported 
substantial  successes  achieved  with  the  help  of 
equipment  and 
the 
programme,19 such as:  

funded  under 

training 

 

seizures of smuggled and counterfeit cigarettes 
and tobacco; 

  detection of new fraud schemes and networks 

of organised crime groups; and 

  operations 

and 

into 
irregularities  and  corruption  perpetrated 
against the financial interests of the Union. 

investigations 

2.3.  CJEU jurisprudence  

In 2017, three rulings by the Court of Justice of the 
European Union (CJEU) added to the jurisprudence 
on  the  protection  of  the  EU’s  financial  interests. 
Two  (in  the  Alytaus20  and  Glencore  cases)21  dealt 
with  issues  relating  to  periods  of  limitation,  while 
the  third  (M.A.S.  and  M.B)22  related  to  VAT,  in 

programme  to  promote  activities  in  the  field  of  the 
protection  of  the  financial  interests  of  the  European  Union 
repealing  Decision 
III  programme) 
(Hercule 
No 804/2004/EC (OJ L 84, 20.3.2014, p. 6). 
Decision 

C(2017) 

1120 

final 

and 

of 

18  Commission 

22 February 2017. 

from 

19   For details, see the SWD referred to in footnote 1, point (v). 
20   Case  C-436/15,  Request  for  a  preliminary  ruling  under 
Article 267  TFEU 
vyriausiasis 
administracinis  teismas  (Supreme  Administrative  Court  of 
Lithuania), made by decision of 10 July 2015, received at the 
Court  on  10 August  2015,  in  the  proceedings  Lietuvos 
Respublikos  aplinkos  ministerijos  Aplinkos  projektų  valdymo 
agentūra  v  ‘Alytaus  regiono  atliekų  tvarkymo  centras’  UAB, 
judgment of the Court (Third Chamber), 15 June 2017.;  

Lietuvos 

the 

http://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf
?text=&docid=191811&pageIndex=0&doclang=EN&mode=l
st&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=120020  

21   Case  C-584/15  Glencore  Céréales  France  v  Établissement 
national  des  produits  de 
la  mer 
(FranceAgriMer),  judgment  of  the  Court  (Fourth  Chamber), 
2 March 2017; 

l’agriculture  et  de 

http://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf
;jsessionid=9ea7d0f130de433267059163433db6acf2f7ed8
ab2e8.e34KaxiLc3eQc40LaxqMbN4Pb38Me0?text=&docid=
188526&pageIndex=0&doclang=EN&mode=lst&dir=&occ=f
irst&part=1&cid=119378  

22   Case  C-42/17,  Request  for  a  preliminary  ruling  under 
costituzionale 

Article 267 

TFEU 

Corte 

from 

the 

11 

 
 
 
                                                 
                                                                           
 
 
 
 
particular  clarifying  some  aspects  of  the  Taricco 
judgment. 

2.4.  Measures taken by Member States  

2.4.1.  Summary  

Figure 2:   CJEU  jurisprudence  on  PIF-related 

matters (2017) 

This  summary  gives  an  overview  of  trends  in  and 
priorities  for  Member  States’  anti-fraud  measures, 
but it is not exhaustive; Member States were asked 
to report a maximum of three anti-fraud measures, 
but some may have taken more.25 

Alytaus 

 (C-436/15) 

Glencore 

 (C-584/15) 

M.A.S. & 
M.B.  

(C-42/17) 

2.3.1.  Limitation periods: the Alytaus and Glencore 

cases 

In  Alytaus,  the  Court  clarified  the  meaning  of  the 
limitation period23 for an irregularity committed in 
the context of a multiannual programme and in the 
case of ‘continuous or repeated’ irregularity. It also 
clarified  when  a  multiannual  programme  can  be 
regarded as ‘definitively terminated’. 

the  Court  provided 

In  Glencore, 
further 
clarifications  as  regards  the  interpretation  of  the 
provisions  referred  to  in  Article 3(1)  and  (4)  of 
Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2988/95 with 
reference to the recovery of claims.  

2.3.2.  VAT: the M.A.S. case 

As a result of the M.A.S. judgement,  in order not to 
disregard  their  obligations  under  Article 325(1) 
and (2) TFEU, the Member States must ensure that 
effective  and  deterrent  criminal  penalties  are 
adopted in cases of serious fraud affecting the EU’s 
financial interests in relation to VAT.24 

Italy),  made  by  decision  of 
(Constitutional  Court, 
23 November 
on 
the 
received 
26 January 2017, in the criminal proceedings against M.A.S., 
M.B., 
(Grand  Chamber), 
the  Court 
5 December 2017;  

judgment  of 

2016, 

Court 

at 

In 2017, Member States reported 73 measures26 to 
protect the EU’s financial interests and fight fraud. 
The  measures  covered  the  entire  anti-fraud  cycle, 
mostly in the area of shared management, but also 
on financial crime, customs and illicit trade, public 
procurement,  conflicts  of  interest,  anti-corruption 
and  anti-fraud 
crime, 
anti-fraud  coordination  services  (AFCOSs),  the 
definition of fraud, and whistleblowers. Most of the 
followed  by 
measures  concerned  detection, 
prevention, 
prosecution, 
and 
recovery and sanctions.  

strategies,  organised 

investigation 

The  majority  (77 %)  were  sectoral  rather  than 
cross-cutting  (23 %).  Of  the  sectoral  measures,  15 
concerned  revenue  in  the  fields  of  tax  fraud  and 
customs.  Another  41  concerned  expenditure, 
covering  all  areas  of  the  budget.  Sector-related 
measures  will  be  dealt  with  in  the  paragraphs 
dedicated  to  the  various  budgetary  areas,  while 
this section focuses on the cross-cutting measures. 

2.4.1.1.  National anti-fraud strategies (NAFS) 

to 

the  Commission.  This 

By  the  end  of  2017,  a  total  of  10  Member  States27 
had adopted a national anti-fraud strategy and sent 
it 
their 
understanding  of  the  importance  of  a  strategic 
approach  to  combating  fraud  and  irregularities. 
The  Commission  welcomes  these  developments 
and calls on the other Member States to draft such 
strategies. 

shows 

2.4.1.2.  Public procurement and corruption 

Many  of  the  measures  adopted  by  Member  States 
in  2017  on  public  procurement  are  aimed  at 
tackling  corruption  and  conflicts  of  interest,  and 
enhancing  transparency.  Six  Member  States28 
reported taking such measures. 

http://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf
;jsessionid=9ea7d0f130dee23bf505dd284bfca15ec6074b2
9881b.e34KaxiLc3eQc40LaxqMbN4Pb38Me0?text=&docid=
197423&pageIndex=0&doclang=EN&mode=lst&dir=&occ=f
irst&part=1&cid=122561  

23   Within  the  meaning  of  Article  3(1)  of  Regulation  (EC, 

Euratom) No 2988/95. 

24   Case  C-42/17  M.A.S.,  paragraph  35,  recalling  the  judgment 

in Taricco (Case C-105/14); 

http://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf
?text=&docid=167061&pageIndex=0&doclang=en&mode=l
st&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=124335  

25  Reported  measures  are  analysed  in  detail  in  the  SWD 

referred to in footnote 1, point (i). 

26   Some of these were part of a package including, for instance, 
legislative,  administrative,  operational  or  organisational 
measures adopted together to apply at various levels in the 
country’s  institutional  structure.  This  brings  the  total  of 
reported measures to 111. 

27  Bulgaria,  Croatia,  Czech  Republic,  France,  Greece,  Hungary, 
Italy, Latvia, Malta and Slovakia. Romania reported  a NAFS 
in the past, but this is now outdated. 

28  Czech Republic, Spain, Malta, Estonia, Cyprus and Romania . 

12 

 
 
 
 
                                                                           
 
 
 
 
                                                 
2.4.1.3.  Other measures 

Other  reported  cross-cutting  measures  mainly 
concerned  financial  and  organised  crime  (Czech 
Republic,  Poland  and  Lithuania),  reviewing  the 
organisation  and  competences  of  specific  bodies 
(Greece  and  Sweden)  or  improving  inter-agency 
cooperation. 

Three  Member  States  reported  measures 
address  revenue  and  expenditure 
sectors:29  

to 
in  certain 

(2) 

 fully transpose the revised Public Procurement 
Directives 

 

 

 

to 

launched 

a  national 

(#FraudOff!) 

took  measures 

anti-fraud 
Latvia 
campaign 
raise  public 
awareness of fraud, complemented by specific 
training for the administrations concerned; 
Italy 
combine 
administrative and penal initiatives that make 
it possible to reconstruct illicit financial flows 
and seize the assets of criminal organisations; 
and  
Slovenia  took  measures  to 
increase  the 
detection  and  clearance  rate  for  crimes  that 
harm the EU budget. 

to 

2.4.2.  Implementation of 2016 recommendations 

In the 2016 PIF report, the Commission made four 
recommendations  to  the  Member  States;  one 
targeted revenue and three expenditure.  

Overall, the follow-up to the recommendations (see 
diagrams below) showed that most Member States 
have  made  or  are  making  significant  and 
constructive 
gave 
appropriate attention to most recommendations.31 

The  majority 

efforts.30 

(3) 

improve  the  quality  of  data  when  reporting 
irregularities 

The  Commission  had  recommended  that  Member 
States: 

(1)  review their management and control strategy 

with regard to customs valuation 

(4)  take into account the risk-analysis findings 

29   Although  the  Member  States  do  not  explicitly  define  these 

as cross-cutting measures, they fit best in this section. 

30   The  UK  did  not  provide  any  information  concerning  the 

follow-up to the recommendations. 

31   Detailed  analysis  of  the  replies  can  be  found  in  the  SWD 

referred to in footnote 1, point (i). 

Nevertheless,  there  is  still  room  for  improvement, 
such  as  implementing  new  rules  on  customs 
undervaluation  and  the  non-release  of  goods  in 
cases  of  doubt;  wider  use  of  the  EU-wide  risk 
profiles  based  on  ‘clean  average  prices’  could  be 

13 

 
 
 
 
                                                 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
envisaged.  More  could  be  done  to  ensure  fully 
digital  public  procurement  procedures.  Also, 
although  some  Member  States  provide  or  arrange 
training  and  seminars  on  using  IT  systems  for 
reporting, so as to enhance data quality and update 

irregularities  already  reported,  others  could  step 
up their efforts. Lastly, cooperation among Member 
States could be improved as regards the increased 
threat  of 
fraud  and  European 
transnational 
territorial cooperation programmes.  

2.5.  Summary of statistics concerning detected irregularities and fraud32 

In 2017, a total of 15 213 fraudulent and non-fraudulent irregularities were reported to the Commission, 
20.8 % fewer than in 2016. They involved approximately EUR 2.58 billion, 8.6 % down from the previous 
year.  

The detection of an irregularity implies that corrective measures have been taken in order to recover the 
irregular  financial  amounts  involved  and  that  criminal  proceedings  have  been  launched  if  fraud  is 
suspected. 

Figure 3:  

Irregularities reported as fraudulent in 2017 

1 146 irregularities reported as 
fraudulent (-19 %) 

EUR 467.1 million (+37.5 %) 

705 irregularities reported as fraudulent (-17 
%) 

EUR 390.7 million involved (+53 %) 

0.29 % of 2017 payments 

441 irregularities reported as fraudulent (-22 %) 

EUR 76.4 million involved (-10 %) 

0.30 % of gross amount of TOR collected for 2017 

32  For a detailed analysis of the reported irregularities, see the SWD referred to in footnote 1, point (ii). 

14 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
2.5.1.  Detected fraudulent irregularities 

The  number  of  irregularities  reported  as  fraudulent  (which  includes  cases  of  suspected  or  established 
fraud) and the associated amounts is not a direct indicator of the level of fraud affecting the EU budget. It 
merely shows how many cases of potential fraud are being detected by Member States and EU bodies. 

In 2017, a total of 1 146 irregularities were reported as fraudulent (i.e. 7.5 % of all irregularities detected 
and reported),33 involving about EUR 467 million (representing 18.1 % of all financial amounts affected by 
irregularities)34 and covering both expenditure and revenue, as shown in Figure 3.  

The number of fraudulent irregularities reported in 2017 fell by 19.3 % as compared with 2016, while the 
financial amounts involved increased by 37.5 %. Looking at a five-year period (2013-2017), this was 32 % 
fewer  than  in  2013,  23 %  below  the  five-year  average.  The  financial  impact  fluctuates  greatly  (see 
Figure 4), as it can be affected by individual cases involving very large sums. 

Figure 4:  

Irregularities reported as fraudulent and associated amounts, 2013-2017 

A breakdown of all fraudulent irregularities reported in 2017, by Member State and by budget sector, is 
set out in Annex 1. 

2.5.2.  Detected and reported non-fraudulent irregularities 

In 2017, the Commission was notified of 14 067 irregularities not reported as fraudulent ( 20.9 % fewer 
than  in  2016).  The  figures  fell  for  all  sectors  except  pre-accession.  The  financial  amounts  involved 
decreased by approximately EUR 2.1 billion, as shown in Figure 5.  

33   This  indicator  is  the  ‘fraud  frequency  level’  (FFL).  See  section  2.3.2  of  the  Commission  staff  working  document  Methodology 

regarding the statistical evaluation of reported irregularities for 2015 (SWD(2016) 237 final). 

34  This indicator is the ‘fraud amount level’ (FAL). See section 2.3.3 of the document referred to in footnote 33. 

15 

 
 
 
 
                                                 
Figure 5:  

Irregularities not reported as fraudulent in 2017 

14 067 irregularities not 
reported as fraudulent (-21 %) 

EUR 2 111 million (-15 %) 

9 872 irregularities not reported as fraudulent (-26 %) 

EUR 1 685.7 million involved (-17 %) 

1.25 % of 2017 payments 

4 195 irregularities reported as fraudulent (-5 %) 

EUR 425.3 million involved (-8 %) 

1.66 % of gross amount of TOR collected for 2017 

2.5.3.  OLAF investigations 

In 2017, OLAF opened 215 investigations and concluded 197,  recommending financial recoveries worth 
EUR 3.1 billion,  of  which  EUR  2.7  billion  related  to  revenue.  This  exceptionally  high  figure  stems  from 
major  underevaluation  fraud  cases  concluded  by  OLAF  during  the  year.  At  the  end  of  the  year,  362 
investigations were ongoing.35 

Figure 6:   Ongoing investigations at the end of 2017, by sector36 

35   https://ec.europa.eu/anti-fraud/about-us/reports/olaf-report_en  
36   In  2017,  as  in  the  previous  year,  OLAF  has  continued  to  deal  with  a  relatively  high  number  of  cases  related  to  the  European 
Parliament. While many of the investigations are currently on-going, in 2017 cases typically related to the misuse of European 
Parliament funding to support the activities of national parties. These cases are recorded under the category 'Eu staff'. See OLAF 
2017 report (footnote 35, page 23). 

16 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
3.  ANTI-FRAUD  POLICIES,  MEASURES  AND  RESULTS  — 

REVENUE 

3.1.  EU  institutions’  anti-fraud  measures  – 

revenue 

When  it  comes  to  fighting  fraud  in  the  revenue 
area,  the  swift,  timely  and  accurate  exchange  of 
information 
is  of  the  essence.  This  ensures 
adequate  coordination  to  disrupt  fraud  schemes 
that  are  by  nature  transnational.  The  EU  fights 
these  areas  by 
fraud  and 

irregularities 

in 

reinforcing  the  legal  framework  and  international 
cooperation  agreements,  ensuring  operational 
coordination  via  Joint  Customs  Operations  (JCOs) 
and  facilitating  the  exchange  of  information  in 
relation to VAT fraud.  

Member States have adopted national measures to: 

 

 

 

review  strategic  plans,  risk  assessments  and 
indicators;  

reorganise competent services; and  

enhance information exchanges. 

Figure 7:   Policy highlights in the revenue areas 

Coordination, 
cooperation 
and 
information 
exchange 

11 JCOs coordinated by OLAF 

Proposal for amending Regulation (EU) No 904/2010 
on VAT fraud (discussions ongoing in Council) 

Mutual assistance agreements with non-EU countries: 
Mercosur and Azerbaijan 

Anti-fraud clause in free trade agreement with Japan 

3.1.1.  Mutual administrative assistance 

3.1.1.1.  Implementation 

of  Article 43b 

of 

meantime, it has pursued its work and finalised 
its assessment.40 

Regulation (EC) No 515/97 

3.1.1.2. 

Anti-Fraud 

Information 

2015/1525,37 

(EU) 
amending 
Regulation 
Regulation 
(EC)  No 515/9738  on  mutual 
administrative  assistance  in  customs  matters, 
introduced  a  new  Article  43b  requiring  the 
Commission  to  assess  the  need  to  extend  the 
container  status  message  (CSM)  directory  and 
the import, export and transit (IET) directory to 
export  data  not  limited  to  excisable  goods.  The 
Commission  is  also  required  to  assess  the 
feasibility of extending the transport directory to 
data  on  the  import,  export  and  transit  of  goods 
by land and air. 

The  Commission  reported 
findings 

its  preliminary 
in  the  2016  PIF  report.39  In  the 

37  Regulation (EU) 2015/1525 of the European Parliament 
and  of  the  Council  of  9  September  2015  amending 
Council Regulation (EC) No 515/97 on mutual assistance 
between  the  administrative  authorities  of  the  Member 
States  and  cooperation  between  the  latter  and  the 
Commission to ensure the correct application of the law 
on 
(OJ L 243, 
18.9.2015, p. 1). 

customs  and  agricultural  matters 

38  OJ L 82, 22.3.1997, p. 1. 
39   See COM(2017) 383 final, section 3.1.1.2. 

System (AFIS) 

AFIS  is  an  umbrella  of  anti-fraud  applications 
operated  by  OLAF,  using  common  technical 
infrastructure.  It  is  an  important  IT  tool  for 
many  administrations  and  other  users  involved 
in  protecting  the  EU’s  financial  interests.  It  also 
enables  substantial  economies  of  scale  and 
synergies  in  the  development,  maintenance  and 
operation  of  such  a  wide  and  diverse  set  of  IT 
services and tools, aiming at: 

 

the  timely  and  secure  exchange  of  fraud-
related  information  between  the  competent 
national and EU administrations; and 

 

the storage and analysis of relevant data. 

AFIS covers two major areas: 

  mutual assistance in customs matters; and 

 

irregularities management. 

40   For more details, see the SWD referred to in footnote 1, 

point (vi). 

17 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
                                                 
At  the  end  of  2017,  AFIS  had  8 600  registered 
than  1 800 
end-users  on  behalf  of  more 
competent  services  in  Member  States,  non-EU 
partner  countries,  international  organisations, 
Commission  departments  and  other  EU  bodies. 
In 2017, a total of 16 324 cases were available in 
the  AFIS  mutual  assistance  databases  and 
modules. 

The 
irregularity  management  system  (IMS), 
which  uses  the  AFIS  platform,  received  88 347 
new  communications  on 
irregularities  from 
Member States and candidate countries. 

Two new IT systems provided for in Regulation 
(EC)  No 515/97 
the  CSM 
directory  and  the  IET  directory,  went  live  on 
1 September 2016. 

(as  amended), 

AFIS received 637 million CSMs in 2017. The IET 
directory  contains  declaration  data  on  the 
import and transit of goods and on the export of 
export 
excise  goods.  Some  5.3  million 
declarations  and 
related  messages  were 
processed. 

Figure 8:  

Joint customs operations in 2017 

AFIS was used for secure access and exchange of 
information in 11 JCOs (see next section). 

The anti-fraud transit information system (ATIS) 
received information on 22.5 million new transit 
consignments. These are also available in the IET 
directory. 

3.1.1.3. 

Joint customs operations (JCOs) 

JCOs  are  coordinated  and  targeted  operational 
measures  implemented  by  Member  States’  and 
non-EU  countries’  customs  authorities  over  a 
limited  period  to  combat  illicit  cross-border 
trafficking in goods.  

In  2017,  OLAF  coordinated  and  supported  11 
JCOs  cooperating  with  Member  States  and 
contributing intelligence and technical, financial 
and logistical support. 

The  JCOs  targeted  various  threats,  including 
cigarette  smuggling,  revenue  fraud,  counterfeit 
products,  illicit  cash  movements  and  narcotics. 
Figure  8  presents  a  summary  of  most  of  the 
operations. 

Operation 

Participating countries 

Scope 

Results 

JCO 
Renegade 

Asia-Europe meeting: all Member 
States, Norway, 12 Asian 
countries, Interpol, Europol, 
Regional Intelligence Liaison 
Office (WTO) 

JCO 
Cerberus 

27 Member States, Europol 
support 

JCO 
Magnum II  

Coordinated by Estonian customs 
with the involvement of 14 Member 
States, Europol and Frontex 

Counterfeit goods, in particular auto 
spare parts (ASPs) 

Failures to declare cash, money 
laundering and criminal 
organisations involved in terrorist 
activities. 

Smuggling of tobacco products 
transported by road from non-EU 
countries (Belarus, Ukraine and 
Russia) 

70 000 ASPs; 400 000 other 
counterfeit goods; 56 million 
cigarettes (worth EUR 12 
million in customs duties and 
taxes) 

Detention of EUR 6.4 million 

Seizure of around 20 million 
cigarettes 

Octopus II 

Organised by French customs 

Revenue fraud 

Evaluation ongoing 

Load, Lock 
Sea, Lucky 
and Pascal  

Coordinated by French customs 

Regional maritime surveillance 
operations to detect illicit trafficking 
of sensitive goods by sea, in the 
Atlantic and Mediterranean areas 

Over 5 tonnes of cannabis 
resin seized and 10 people 
arrested 

JCO Postbox 

Led by Belgian, German and 
Swedish customs under the 
‘customs against internet crime’ 
action 

Excise fraud and illegal trade in 
counterfeit goods, drugs and 
weapons in shipments transported 
by mail and express courier services 

Over 3 000 seizures of 
thousands of illicit products, 
including pharmaceutical 
preparations, narcotics, 
cigarettes, counterfeit goods, 
protected species and 
weapons 

18 

 
 
 
Operation 

Participating countries 

Scope 

Results 

JCO Darius 

Organised by Dutch customs  

Smuggling of specific new 
psychoactive substances (NPS) and 
counterfeit and undervalued goods, 
transported by fast-couriers and 
postal services 

Over 300 seizures  

Joint Action 
Hansa 

Driven by UK customs in 
cooperation with Europol 

Internal movement of illegal 
excisable goods, mainly cigarettes 

Seizures of large numbers of 
cigarettes and other tobacco 
products 

3.1.2.  Mutual 

assistance 

and 

anti-fraud 

provisions in international agreements 

In  the  context  of  Article 19  of  Regulation  (EC) 
No 515/97,  negotiations  were  finalised  with 
Mercosur  (Argentina,  Brazil,  Paraguay  and 
Uruguay) 
on  mutual 
administrative  assistance  provisions  forming  a 
legal  basis  for  the  exchange  of  information  on 
irregularities.  Negotiations  with 
fraud  and 
Tunisia and Indonesia made good progress. 

Azerbaijan 

and 

The  EU  also  made  progress 
in  ongoing 
negotiations on including an anti-fraud clause in 
free  trade  agreements  with  Mexico,  Mercosur, 
Chile,  Indonesia  and  Tunisia,  and  concluded  an 
agreement with Japan. 

3.1.3.  Fight  against 
products 

illicit  trade 

in  tobacco 

On  12  May  2017,  the  Commission  issued  a 
progress report41 on the preliminary outcome of 
its  2013  Communication  Stepping  up  the  fight 
against  cigarette  smuggling  and  other  forms  of 
illicit 
tobacco  products  —  a 
comprehensive EU strategy,42 which came with a 
comprehensive action plan. 

trade 

in 

Council  conclusions  on  stepping  up  the  fight 
against  illegally  traded  tobacco  products  in  the 
EU  (adopted  on  7  December  2017)43  and  the 
‘Fighting  illicit  tobacco’  stakeholder  conference 
(co-organised  by  OLAF  and  the  European 
Economic and Social Committee in March 2018) 
feed into the Commission’s work on a new action 
plan  to  fight  illicit  tobacco,  envisaged  for  late 
summer 2018. 

In  addition,  the  EU’s  ratified  the  World  Health 
Organisation’s  Framework  Convention  on 
Tobacco  Control  (FCTC)  Protocol  on  24  June 
2016. The FTCT Protocol will enter into force on 

41   COM(2017) 235 final. 
42   COM(2013) 324 final. 
43   Council doc. 15638/17. 

25  September  2018.  The  Commission  will 
represent  the  EU    at  the  first  meeting  of  the 
parties  to  the  Protocol  in  October  2018  and 
continue  to  play  a  leading  role  in  encouraging 
Member  States,  neighbouring  countries  and  the 
main  source  and  transit  countries  to  ratify  and 
implement the Protocol.  

3.1.4.  Fight against VAT fraud 

On 30 November 2017, as a follow-up to its April 
2016  action  plan  on  VAT,44  the  Commission 
adopted  a  proposal  to  amend  Regulation  (EU) 
No 904/2010  on  administrative  cooperation  in 
the  area  of  VAT.45  On  June  2018,  the  Council 
reached  a  political  agreement  on  the  proposal. 
The  proposal  is  geared  to  making  the  EU’s  VAT 
system  more  fraud-proof  and  closing  loopholes 
that  can  lead  to  large-scale  VAT  fraud.  The new 
rules aim to build trust between Member States, 
so that they can exchange more information, and 
tax 
boost 
authorities  and  law-enforcement  bodies.  Key 
measures include: 

cooperation  between  national 

 

 

 

strengthening cooperation between Member 
States  (e.g.  new  IT  system  for  information 
processing and risk analysis within Eurofisc 
(EU  network  of  anti-fraud  experts),  joint 
audits); 

data 
communication 
reinforcing 
exchange  between  national  tax  authorities 
in  Eurofisc  and  European  law-enforcement 
bodies  (OLAF,  Europol  and  the 
future 
EPPO); 

and 

improving cooperation between national tax 
and customs authorities for certain customs 
procedures for imports from outside the EU, 
which are currently open to VAT fraud; and 

44   An  action  plan  on  VAT:  towards  a  single  EU  VAT  area  – 
time  to  decide,  Communication  from  the  Commission  to 
the European Parliament, the Council and the European 
Economic and Social Committee (COM(2016) 148). 
45   Council Regulation (EU) No 904/2010 of 7 October 2010 
on  administrative  cooperation  and  combating  fraud  in 
the field of value added tax (OJ L 268, 12.10.2010, p. 1). 

19 

 
 
 
 
                                                 
                                                 
 

strengthening  information-sharing  to  tackle 
VAT fraud on second-hand cars.  

3.3.  Statistics  on  detected  irregularities  and 

fraud – revenue  

3.2.  Member  States’  anti-fraud  measures  – 

Figure 9:   Key  patterns 

in 

irregularities 

revenue  

detected and reported in 2017 

Some  12  Member  States  reported  measures  to 
fight customs and tax fraud; these included: 

Successful methods 
of control 

Goods most affected 
by irregularities in 
financial terms 

Emerging goods 
affected 

• solar panels 
• biodiesel 
• textiles 

• bicycles 
• vehicles 

• inspections by anti-

fraud services 
(fraudulent and 
non-fraudulent 
irregularities) 
• post-release 

controls 
(fraudulent and 
non-fraudulent) 
• clearence controls 

(fraudulent) 

 

 

refining  risk 
undervaluation of import declarations;46  

indicators  to  address  the 

reviewing national customs risk assessment 
and  raised  the  minimum  fine  for  failure  to 
declare the amount of cash carried;47 

  drafting an internal customs plan;48 

 

 

setting  strategic  and  operational  priorities 
for customs and excise;49 and 

implementing  a  new  post-clearance  audit 
to  all 
method  extending 
activities  of  the  economic  operator 
in 
question.50 

inspections 

Three  countries  introduced  measures  to  ensure 
the  correct  payment  of  EU  own  resources51  or 
more  successful  recoveries,52  or  to  combat  tax 
fraud and evasion.53 

Two  countries  established  or  reviewed  the 
organisation of specific bodies.54 

3.3.1.  Detected fraudulent irregularities56 

One  Member  State55  addressed  the  need  to 
improve the quantity and quality of information 
exchanged through international platforms. 

46   The Netherlands, in particular as regards textile goods. 
47   Portugal. 
48   Finland. 
49   Belgium. 
Italy. 
50  
51   Denmark. 
52   Spain. 
53   Slovenia. 
54   Germany and Greece. 
55   France. 

20 

A  total  of  441  irregularities  were  reported  as 
fraudulent in 2017. This is 33 % lower than the 
five-year average (658 irregularities on average 
in  2013-2017).  The  affected  amount  of  TOR 
estimated  and  established  (EUR  76 million)  in 
2017 was 28 % lower than the five-year average 
(EUR 106 million).  

As regards the investigation into undervaluation 
fraud  in  the  UK,  a  pre-infringement  procedure 
was  launched  with  a  formal  notice  letter  in 
March  2018.  The  procedure  was  launched  in 
record  time  and  in  view  of  the  fact  that  the  UK 
had  for  several  years  failed  to  take  appropriate 
measures  to  protect  the  EU’s  financial  interests 
and refused  to  make available  to the  EU budget 
the  TOR  losses  resulting  from  its  inaction.  The 
infringement covers the period since 2011. If the 
UK authorities do not succeed in recovering the 
duties due, they will be held financially liable for 
any associated TOR not made available to the EU 
budget. 

For  the  second  year,  the  Commission  entered  a 
reservation in the 2017 annual activity report on 
the accuracy of the TOR amounts transferred to 
the EU budget by the UK. 

56  For  information  on  the  recovery  of  TOR  amounts 
affected  by  fraud  and  irregularities,  see  the  SWD 
referred to in footnote 1, point (ii). 

 
 
 
                                                 
 
                                                 
3.3.2.  Detected  and  reported  non-fraudulent 

irregularities 

The  number  of 
irregularities  reported  as 
non-fraudulent  for  2017  amounts  to  4 195, 
which  is  8 %  fewer  than  the  five-year  average 
(4 564 in 2013-2017). The total affected amount 
of  TOR  estimated  and  established  amounts  to 
EUR  425  million  in  2017,  which  is  15 %  higher 
than the five-year average of EUR 369 million. 

4. 

SECTORAL ANTI-FRAUD POLICIES, MEASURES AND 
RESULTS — EXPENDITURE 

4.1.  Member  States’ 

sectoral  anti-fraud 
policies  and  measures  involving  several 
expenditure sectors 

Member  States  reported  several  measures  that 
address different funds at the same time, mostly 
the  European  Structural  and  Investment  Funds 
(ESIFs).57 Some of the measures extend to other 
shared  management  funds,  such  as  the  Asylum 
and  Migration  Fund  (AMIF),  the  Fund  for 
European Aid to the Most Deprived (FEAD) and 
the  European  Globalisation  Adjustment  Fund 
(EGF). The measures differ widely in nature and 
from  simplification  of 
purpose,  and  range 
procedures  to  a  review  of  the  system  for 
financial  corrections;  from  risk  assessments  to 
training  courses  on  specific  cross-cutting 
issues.58 

4.2.  Agriculture  —  sectoral  anti-fraud 

policies, measures and results 

4.2.1.  Agriculture  —  Member  States’  anti-fraud 

measures 

reported  anti-fraud 
Nine  Member  States 
measures specific to agriculture. Three countries 
focused  on  the  ‘artificial  creation  of  eligibility 
criteria’.59 Other measures involve: 

  mandatory  fraud  prevention  training  and  a 
rural development anti-fraud strategy;60 

  preventing irregularities when granting aids 

and subsidies;61 

 

checks  on  the  basis  of  procurement  rules 
and  evaluating 
‘reasonableness’  of 
costs;62 

the 

57   The  ESIFs  broadly  cover  agriculture,  fisheries  and 

cohesion policies. 

58   For a complete overview, see paragraph 5.1 of the SWD 

referred to in footnote 1, point (i). 

59   Germany, Lithuania and Cyprus. 
60   Hungary. 
61   Slovakia. 
62   The Netherlands. 

21 

 

 

 

improving  the  timeliness  and  quality  of  the 
information reported via IMS;63 

reviewing  the  external  and  internal  control 
system, following  the  detection of a  scam;64 
and 

reviewing  procedures 
in  areas  such  as 
flagging  practices,  the  use  of  risk  indicators 
and cooperation with law enforcement.65 

4.2.2.  Agriculture  — 

statistics  on  detected 

irregularities and fraud 

The  Common  Agricultural  Policy 
comprises two main components: 

(CAP) 

 

 

support 

direct 
through  direct 
(SA), 
payments  to  farmers  and  market  support 
financed  by  the 
measures,  which  are 
European  Agricultural  Guarantee  Fund 
(EAGF  —  about  80 %  of  the  CAP  budget); 
and 

rural  development  (RD),  which  is  mainly 
financed through the European Agricultural 
Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD — the 
remaining 20 % of the CAP budget).  

The  EAGF  follows  an  annual  implementation 
cycle,  while  the  EAFRD  finances  multiannual 
programmes. 

The trend of irregularities detected and reported 
by  Member  States  over  the  last  five  years  is 
influenced  by  these  differences:  SA  shows  a 
stable,  flat  trend,  while  RD  follows  a  curve, 
peaking  in  2015.  Analysis  of  the  irregularities 
confirms the higher risk associated with market 
support measures and RD investments.66 

4.2.2.1.  Detected fraudulent irregularities 

For the reporting years 2013 to 2017, the fraud 
frequency  level  (FFL)  is  about  11 %  and  the 
fraud amount level (FAL) 25 %. Both indicators, 
but  especially  the  FAL,  were  higher  for  SA  than 
for RD.  

In  absolute  numbers,  the  majority  of  detected 
potential  frauds  affected  RD,  but  the  total 
financial  amount  of  cases  concerning  SA  was 
higher  and  increased  significantly  in  2017.  The 
predominance  of  SA  in  financial  terms  was  due 
to a few cases concerning market measures and 
involving very large sums. However, even net of 

63   Austria. 
64   Luxembourg. 
65   Poland. 
66   All  the  assessments  presented  in  this  section  are  based 
on findings detailed in chapter 3 of the SWD referred to 
in footnote 1, point (ii). 

 
 
 
                                                 
                                                 
these  exceptional  cases,  the  average  financial 
amount of potential frauds in the area of market 
measures  is  higher  than  that  of  RD  cases.  The 
average  financial  amount  of  potential  fraud 
concerning direct payments is lower than that of 
RD cases and decreased in 2017.  

that  this  is  heavily  influenced  by  a  few  cases 
with  exceptional  financial  amounts.  In  financial 
terms,  the  main  market  measures  concerned 
were  ‘fruit  and  vegetables’,  ‘pigmeat,  eggs  and 
poultry, bee-keeping and other animal products’ 
and ‘products of the wine-growing sector’.  

The  Fraud  Detection  Rate  (FDR)  was  higher  for 
RD than for SA as a whole. Nevertheless, market 
measures  were  most  affected,  with  an  FDR  of 
1.17 %.  However,  it  should  be  borne  in  mind 
Figure 10:   Agricultural policy – key facts and figures 

The  ratio  of  dismissed  cases 
in 
agriculture  than  in  the  cohesion  policy  area. 
Judicial  authorities  seem 
to 
prosecute alleged crimes in this sector. 

is  higher 

inclined 

less 

CAP components 

• Direct payments and 

market support (≈28 % of 
2017 EU budget) 

• Rural development (≈10 % 

of 2017 EU budget) 

Irregularities 
reported as 
fraudulent 

• 276 detected and 

reported in 2017 (-32 %) 
• EUR 59.9 million (stable) 

Irregularities not 
reported as fraudulent 

• 3 054 detected and 

reported in 2017 (-7 %) 
• EUR 210.4 million (+13 %) 

Modus operandi 

Detection 

• Fraudulent: tampering 

with documentary proof 
(false or falsified) 

• Non-fraudulent: (non-) 
action by beneficiary, 
violations concerning 
claims/documentary 
proof 

• Risk analysis, tips from 
informant, whistle-
blower, or information 
from media are at the 
basis of a limited 
number of detections, 
involving high amounts 

• Judicial enquiries 
• Information from EU 

bodies 

4.2.2.2.  Detected  and  reported  non-fraudulent 

irregularities 

many  reports  of  falsification.  However,  these 
cases are not classified as fraudulent.67  

general, 

the  patterns  described 

in 
In 
section 4.2.2  also  apply  to  irregularities  not 
reported as fraudulent. RD-related irregularities 
predominate  both  numerically  and  in  terms  of 
total  financial  amounts.  However,  the  average 
amount  involved  in  SA  cases  is  higher  and  rose 
further  in  2017.  Again,  a  few  cases  concerning 
market  measures  and  involving  large  sums 
contributed  to  this  higher  average.  However, 
even net of these exceptional cases, the average 
financial amount of non-fraudulent irregularities 
in market measures in 2013-2017 is still higher 
than  that  of  RD  cases.  The  average  financial 
irregularities 
non-fraudulent 
amount 
concerning direct payments is lower that that of 
RD cases and is decreasing. 

of 

The Irregularity Detection Rate (IDR) was higher 
for RD than for SA as a whole. However, the IDR 
for market measures is 1.39 %, the highest of the 
whole  policy  area.  Again,  this  is  influenced  by  a 
few cases involving large financial amounts.  

Figure 11:   Market  measures  most  affected 
by irregularities (fraudulent and 
non-fraudulent) 

the  most  recurrent  detected  and 
Among 
irregularities, 
reported 
violations 
claims  or 
concerning  payment 
documentary  proof  predominate  and  there  are 

non-fraudulent 

67   This situation mainly concerns Italy. These irregularities 
may be reclassified at a later stage and such an approach 
may  be  linked  to  a  preliminary  phase  of  ongoing 
investigations. 

22 

 
 
 
 
                                                 
Market measures affected 

Products of the 
wine-growing 
sector 

Fruit and 
vegetables 

Pigmeat, eggs 
and poultry, bee-
keeping and 
other animal 
products 

4.3.  Cohesion policy and fisheries — sectoral anti-fraud policies, measures and results 

4.3.1.  Cohesion policy and fisheries — Member States’ anti-fraud measures  

Cohesion policy and fisheries were the policy areas most targeted by measures adopted by Member States 
in 2017. 

Eight  countries  reported  that  they  had  introduced  ARACHNE  in  their  management  system,68  IT  tools  in 
public  procurement,69  a  computerised  accounting  system70  or  improvements  to  their  beneficiary 
information system.71 Four introduced a fraud risk-assessment tool72 or developed specific risk analysis 
on economic crime.73 

Four  countries  adopted  measures  concerning  the  management  or  reporting  of  irregularities.74  Three 
adopted  measures  specific  to  one  fund.75  The  remaining  measures  concerned  conflicts  of  interest,76  the 
introduction of a verification procedure77 and anti-fraud training.78 

68   Belgium, Bulgaria, Luxembourg, the Netherlands and the UK. 
69   Poland. 
70   Slovenia. 
71   Finland. 
72   Germany, Cyprus and Luxembourg. 
73   Sweden. 
74   Bulgaria, Croatia, Denmark and Malta. 
75   Germany (ESF), Ireland (ESF) and Italy (EMFF). 
76   Belgium. 
77   Austria. 
78   Finland. 

23 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
Figure 12:   Cohesion and fisheries policies – key facts and figures 

Cohesion policy and 
fisheries 

Irregularities reported 
as fraudulent 

Irregularities not 
reported as fraudulent 

• Multiannual framework 
• About 34 % of the 2017 EU 

budget 

• Irregularities related to 
several programming 
periods, but mainly 2007-
2013 

• 345 detected and reported in 

• 5 129 detected and reported in 

2017 (-9 %) 

2017 (-38 %) 

• EUR 320.4 million (+71 %) 

• EUR 1 395.9 million (-20 %) 

Modus operandi 

Detection 

• Fraudulent: tampering with 
documentary proof (false 
or falsified) 

• Non-fraudulent: 

infringement of public 
procurement rules 

• Risk analysis, tips from 

informant, whistle-blower, 
or information from media 
are at the basis of a limited 
number of detections, 
involving high amounts 
• Information/requests from 

EU bodies show high 
financial amounts 

4.3.2.1.  Detected fraudulent irregularities 

The number of potential frauds continued to fall 
slowly  from  the  2015  peak,  while  the  financial 
amounts  increased (mainly due to  irregularities 
relating to PP 2007-2013). 

The  ‘research  and  technological  development 
(RTD)’  and  ‘transport’  priorities  were  among 
those  most  affected  by  potential  fraud.  As 
regards  the  former,  infringements  of  contract 
provisions  were  the  most-reported  violations, 
for  potentially  fraudulent  and  non-fraudulent 
irregularities.  Infringements  concerning  public 
procurement  rules  were  reported,  but  very  few 
as  fraudulent.  Very  few  violations  concerning 
ethics  and  integrity  were  reported,  but  most 
were  classified  as  potential 
fraud.  More 
specifically,  most  involved  a  conflict  of  interest 
or belonged to the ‘other’ category. 

4.3.2.  Cohesion  policy  and  fisheries  —  statistics 
on detected irregularities and fraud 

Analysis of cohesion policy is more complex than 
that  of  other  budget  sectors,  because  the 
information  received  (reported  irregularities) 
relates  to  different  programming  periods  (PPs) 
governed by partially different sets of rules.  

the 

fact 

Also, 
that  PPs  are  multiannual 
significantly affects the underlying trends. Given 
the similarities in the management of the funds, 
fisheries  and  cohesion  policies  are  analysed 
together. 

The number of irregularities reported in relation 
to  cohesion  and  fisheries  policies  peaked  in 
2015, 
the 
in 
programme cycle.  

the  progress  of 

line  with 

Irregularities  reported  in  2017  concern  four 
different PPs, with the largest proportion (94 %) 
relating  to  PP  2007-2013  and  only  570  (less 
than  2 %)  to  PP  2014-2020.79  In  line  with  the 
implementation  cycle,  reporting  with  reference 
to  PP  2014-2020  basically  started  in  2016  and 
increased  in  2017.  There  are  still  not  enough 
data for a meaningful analysis. 

As  the  bulk  of  reported  irregularities  relate  to 
PP 2007-2013,  the  analysis  focuses  mainly  on 
that programming cycle as a whole. 

79   All  the  assessments  presented  in  this  section  are  based 
on findings detailed in chapter 4 of the SWD referred to 
in footnote 1, point (ii). 

24 

 
 
 
 
                                                 
Figure 13:   Focus on PP 2007-2013 

PP 2007-2013 

Fraudulent 
irregularities 

•1 934 - EUR 1.46 billion 
•FDR 0.44 % (highest for 
convergence and 
fisheries; lowest for 
European territorial 
cooperation (ETC)  
programmes) 
•priorities most affected: 
RTD, transport, tourism 

Non-fraudulent 

•37 869 - EUR 8.46 billion 
•IDR 2.53 % (highest for 
convergence objective 
and fisheries; lowest for 
ETC) 
•priorities most affected: 
RTD, transport and 
tourism 

As regards the ‘transport’ priority, infringements 
relating  to  supporting  documents  were  the 
most-reported  violations  for  potential  fraud. 
Infringements  concerning  public  procurement 
rules  were  the  most  reported,  but  they  were 
rarely reported as potential fraud. The opposite 
was  true  for  infringements  concerning  ethics 
and  integrity:  these  violations  were  rare,  but 
almost  all 
fraud.  They 
involved  potential 
concerned  conflicts  of  interest,  corruption  or 
‘other’.  

The  ratio  of  established  fraud  was  higher  and 
dismissals  lower  for  cohesion  policy  measures 
than for agriculture. 

4.3.2.2.  Detected  and  reported  non-fraudulent 

irregularities 

The  number  of  non-fraudulent  irregularities 
follows  the  main  trend  highlighted  above.  The 
financial  amounts  peaked  in  2016  and  then 
decreased  more  slowly  than  the  numbers.  The 
resulting  higher  average  financial  amounts  for 
PP  2007-2013  may  be  the  outcome  of  better 
targeting or just fortuitous.  

4.4. 

Indirect  management  (pre-accession) 
policies, 
sectoral 
— 
measures and results 

anti-fraud 

4.4.1.  Indirect  management  (pre-accession)  — 
statistics  on  detected  irregularities  and 
fraud 

The analysis of irregularities relating to indirect 
management 
the  pre-accession 
instruments. 

focuses  on 

Reported  irregularities  still  concern  two  main 
periods: 

  2000-2006 – pre-accession assistance (PAA) 
programmes to prepare the accession waves 
of 2004 and 2007, which are slowly phasing 
out 
involving 
EUR 0.1 million, were reported in relation to 
PAA in 2017); and  

irregularities, 

(only 

five 

  2007-2013  –  the  pre-accession  instrument 
the  number  of  reported 
(IPA),  where 
irregularities was basically unchanged from 
2016 (114, involving EUR 17.3 million). 

For PAA, only one irregularity was detected and 
reported as fraudulent. For the IPA, the number 
of irregularities reported as fraudulent dropped 
to  17  (from  22  in  2016),  but  these  involved 
EUR 3.1  million  (up  from  EUR 0.7 million).  The 
main  area  concerned  is  still  rural  development 
support. 

4.5.  Direct  management  — 

sectoral 
anti-fraud  policies,  measures  and 
results 

4.5.1.  Direct  management  — 

statistics  on 

detected irregularities and fraud 

Statistics  on  direct  management  are  based  on 
recovery 
issued  by  Commission 
departments  and  recorded  in  the  Commission’s 
accrual-based accounting system (ABAC). 

orders 

4.5.1.1.  Detected fraudulent irregularities 

In  2017,  ABAC  recorded  65  recovery  items 
classed  as  fraudulent,80  which  accounted  for 
EUR 7.33 million.  Comparing  this  with  the  total 
funds  actually  disbursed,  the  FDR  is  0.03 %, 
i.e. around the stable five-year average. 

4.5.1.2.  Detected  and  reported  non-fraudulent 

irregularities 

As  regards  non-fraudulent  irregularities,  1 585 
recovery items totalling EUR 64.15 million were 

80  Referred to in the system as ‘OLAF notified’ cases. 

25 

 
 
 
 
                                                 
 
recorded  in  2017.  Over  a  five-year  period,  the 
IDR remained stable at around 0.5 %. 

5.  RECOVERY  AND  OTHER  PREVENTIVE  AND 

CORRECTIVE MEASURES 

is  published 

Detailed  information  on  recoveries,  financial 
corrections and other preventive and corrective 
measures  (interruptions  and  suspension  of 
payments) 
the  Annual 
management  and  performance  report,  which  as 
from  2016 
former  annual 
Communication  from  the  Commission  to  the 
European  Parliament,  the  Council  and  the 
European Court of Auditors on the protection of 
the EU budget.81 

includes 

the 

in 

6.  COOPERATION WITH THE MEMBER STATES 

The  Advisory  Committee  for  Coordination  of 
Fraud  Prevention  (COCOLAF)  brings  together 
Commission  (OLAF)  and  Member  State  experts. 
It  provides  a  forum  for  discussing  the  main 
developments  in  the  fight  against  fraud  and  the 
preparation  of  this  report,  as  required  by 
Article 325(5)  TFEU.  Its  work  is  structured 
around  four  working  groups  and  a  plenary 
session (see Figure 14). 

Figure 14:   COCOLAF 

structure 

and 

subgroups 

Fraud prevention 

Anti-fraud 
coordination 
services meeting 

Reporting and 
analysis of 
fraudulent and 
other 
irregularities 

OLAF anti-fraud 
communicators' 
network (OAFCN) 

Plenary 

Two subgroups prepared guidance documents in 
2017: 

  Reporting 

subgroup 

and  Analysis 

– 
Handbook  on  the  requirement  to  report 
irregularities,  which  provides  guidance  on 
States’ 
aspects  of  Member 
common 
reporting of irregularities for PP 2014-2020; 
and 

81  The  AMPR  is  part  of  the  EU  budget  integrated  financial 
reporting package (COM(2018) 457 final). . Information 
concerning recovery on revenue side is also given in the 
Commission  Staff  Working  Document 
‘Statistical 
evaluation of the irregularities reported in 2017’. 

26 

  Fraud Preventionsubgroup – Fraud in public 
procurement  –  a  collection  of  red  flags  and 
best  practices,  which  contains  numerous 
example  cases,  red  flags,  solutions  and  best 
practices  that  are  grouped  thematically 
according  to  the  phases  of  the  tender 
procedure. 

The  Anti-fraud  coordination  service  (AFCOS) 
meet annually under the chairmanship of OLAF. 
In  2017,  OLAF’s  investigative  cooperation,  in 
particular during  on-the-spot checks  and  digital 
forensic  operations,  was  discussed  with  the 
AFCOS  representatives  at  the  annual  meeting. 
Other subjects for discussion included: 

 
 
 

the role of AFCOSs; 
recent policy developments; and  
the  use  of  AFIS  email  for  case-related 
correspondence between OLAF and AFCOSs. 

and 

The  OLAF  Anti-Fraud  Communicators’  Network 
(OAFCN)  brings 
communications 
together 
from  OLAF’s 
spokepersons 
officers 
operational  partners  in  the  Member  States.  It 
plays a pivotal role in communicating the threat 
of fraud to the public across the EU, and the joint 
efforts  made  by  national  and  EU  authorities  to 
combat it. 

arrangements 

two  administrative 
In  2017,  OLAF  signed 
facilitate 
cooperation 
investigative cooperation with Italy’s Carabinieri 
and 
e 
Nazionale 
Antiterrorismo. 

Antimafia 

Direzione 

to 

Member  States  and  the  Commission  exchanged 
views  on  anti-fraud  matters  in  meetings  of  the 
Council’s  Working  Party  on  Combating  Fraud 
(GAF).  Four  GAF  meetings  took  place  in  2017: 
two  under  the  Maltese  Presidency  and  two 
under the Estonian Presidency. 

7.  EARLY DETECTION AND EXCLUSION SYSTEM 

The  Early  Detection  and  Exclusion  System 
(EDES) aims at reinforcing the protection of the 
EU’s financial interests by ensuring: 

 

 

 

the  early  detection  of  economic  operators 
representing  risks  to  the  EU’s  financial 
interests; 
the  exclusion  of  unreliable  economic 
operators  from  obtaining  EU  funds  and/or 
the imposition of a financial penalty; and 
in the most severe cases, the publication on 
the  Commission’s  website  of  information 
relating to the exclusion and/or the financial 
penalty,  in  order  to  reinforce  the  deterrent 
effect. 

 
 
 
 
                                                 
to 

respect 

fundamental 

This  system,  which  was  set  up 
in  2016, 
represents  a  significant  improvement  in  the 
application  of  rules  on  administrative  sanctions 
with 
rights, 
independence  and  transparency.  In  the  absence 
of a final national judgment or, where applicable, 
a  final  administrative  decision,  EU  institutions, 
agencies,  offices  and  bodies  can  decide  to 
impose  sanctions  on  unreliable  economic 
operators 
a 
only 
centralised 
recommendation82 
interinstitutional panel.83  

obtaining 

from 

after 

the 

The  panel  has  no  investigative  powers.  In 
principle,  it  bases  its  assessment  on  facts  and 
findings  established  in  the  context  of  audits  or 
investigations carried out by the European Court 
of Auditors, OLAF or internal audit, or any other 
check,  audit  or  control  performed  under  the 
responsibility  of  the  competent  authorising 
officer.84 It is composed of a standing high-level 
independent  chair,85  two  permanent  members 
representing  the  Commission  (as  owner  of  the 
system)  and  one  ad  hoc  member  representing 
the  authorising  officer  of  the  service  requesting 
the  recommendation.  It  respects  the  right  of 
defence of the economic operator concerned and 
applies the principle of proportionality.86 

In 2017, various authorising services referred 11 
cases,  relating  to  11  economic  operators,  to  the 
panel  through  its  permanent  secretariat.  Of 
these,  10  were  from  the  Commission  and  one 
from  a  joint  undertaking  implementing  an  EU 
public-private  partnership.  This  report  also 
covers  an  additional  four  cases  referred  to  the 
permanent  secretariat  in  2016  and  concerning 
four  economic  operators,  since  they  were 
presented to the panel in 2017.87  

The  Commission  must  also  report  on  decisions 
taken by authorising officers:88 

  not to  exclude economic  operators, so as  to 
ensure  continuity  of  service  for  a  limited 
period  pending  the  adoption  of  remedial 
measures by the operators concerned; and 

82   For  the  situations  referred  to  in  Article  106(1)(c)  to  (f) 
of  the  Financial  Regulation  (i.e.  grave  professional 
misconduct,  fraud,  serious  breaches  of  contractual 
obligations, or irregularities). 
i.e. the panel referred to in Article 108(5) to (10) of the 
Financial Regulation.  

83  

84   The  authorising  officer  can  be  that  of  an  EU  institution, 

an agency, an office or another body.  

85   The chair has a standing high-level independent deputy. 
86  For more information on the panel, see SWD  footnote 1, 

point (v). 

87   As  of  30 

issued  31 
June  2018,  the  panel  had 
recommendations.  For  further  details,  see  the  SWD 
footnote 1, point (v) and its annexes. 

88   Data provided in the SWD , footnote 1, point (v). 

  not to publish information on administrative 
sanctions on the Commission website, either 
to 
of 
investigations  or  to  respect  the  principle  of 
proportionality  where  a  natural  person  is 
concerned. 

confidentiality 

protect 

the 

Authorising  officers  took  no  such  decisions  in 
2017. 

8.  FOLLOW-UP  TO  THE  EUROPEAN  PARLIAMENT 
RESOLUTION ON THE 2016 ANNUAL REPORT  

On  3  May  2018,  the  European  Parliament 
adopted  a  resolution  on  the  Commission’s  2016 
annual  report  on  the  protection  of  the  EU’s 
financial  interests  –  fight  against  fraud.89  The 
Commission  welcomes  the  resolution  and  notes 
the Parliament’s recognition of its activity in the 
fight against  fraud.  It  will  be able to take action 
on many of the issues raised in the resolution, in 
particular as regards close cooperation between 
OLAF and EPPO. It will comment in detail on the 
resolution  in  its  formal  reply,  which  will  be 
transmitted to the Parliament later this year. 

9.  CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 

Legal  and  administrative  measures  to  target 
fraud  and  irregularities  and  protect  the  EU’s 
financial  interests  have  to  be  adapted  on  an 
ongoing  basis.  In  this  respect,  2017  was  a 
landmark  year,  with  the  adoption  of  legislative 
acts that will pave the way to further integration 
and  convergence.  Remaining  differences 
in 
national  legal  and  administrative  frameworks 
warrant  tailor-made  measures,  such  as  those 
adopted  at  national  level  and  described  in  this 
report. 
common 
conclusions and recommendations can be drawn 
take 
to  highlight  prevalent 
advantage  of  best  practices  that  have  proven 
effective  in  particular  countries  or  budgetary 
areas. 

threats  and 

Nonetheless, 

certain 

9.1.  Revenue 

Despite  a  general 
in  the  number  of 
fall 
irregularities  detected,  as  in  2016  imported 
solar  panels  were  the  goods  most  affected  by 
fraud and irregularities in financial terms. Many 
of  the  irregularities  involving  solar  panels  were 
detected  following  a  mutual  assistance  notice 
issued by OLAF. This underlines the importance 
of  OLAF’s  investigations  in  the  detection  of 
irregularities on  transactions  with certain  types 
of  goods  (e.g. incorrect  CN  codes  or  origin 

89   2017/2216(INI)  

http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=
TA&reference=P8-TA-2018-0196&language=EN  

27 

 
 
 
                                                 
                                                 
declarations,  evasion  of  anti-dumping  duties, 
undervaluation of declared goods). 

The  countries  of  origin  most  affected  by  fraud 
and  irregularities  were  China  (in  terms  of  the 
number  of  cases)  and  the  United  States  (in 
financial terms). 

investigations  highlighted 

OLAF 
large-scale 
revenue  frauds  through  the  undervaluation  of 
goods  imported  in  the  EU.  Such  fraud  results  in 
huge losses, not only in customs duties, but also 
in 
investigations 
underlined  that  fraudsters  will  exploit  any 
loopholes and that quantity fraud can pay off. 

evaded  VAT.90  OLAF’s 

OLAF’s  experience  shows  that  undervaluation 
will  remain  a  threat  to  be  dealt  with  in  the 
coming years.  

loopholes,  customs  control 
To  close  these 
strategies  involving  a  combination  of  different 
controls  are  pivotal.  The  customs  control 
strategy should strike the right balance between 
the 
trade 
protection of the EU’s financial interests. 

facilitation/simplification 

and 

Recommendation 1 

Member  States  are  asked  to  remain  vigilant  as 
regards  the  risk  of  undervaluation  of  goods,  in 
particular cheap products imported in extremely 
large quantities, such as textiles and footwear. 

In  order  to  enhance  customs  controls,  Member 
States are requested to ensure that: 

 

 

 

strategies  are  in  place  and  target  all  types 
of customs procedure and all operators; 

proper  coordination  among  all  customs 
services  dealing  with  risk  analysis  and 
controls  exists;  risk  profiles  provide  clear 
instructions and  risk  information  is  shared 
with other Member States; 
close  monitoring  of  the  controls  results 
(feedback)  and  strict  follow-up  of  Mutual 
assistance instructions are in place.  

They are also requested to: 

 

 

 

an 

and 

include 

element 

automated 
systematically 
random 
into 
consideration  the  time-barring  three-year 
period  for  the  communication  of  customs 
debt  as  a  risk  indicator  in  the  post-release 
risk analysis; 

take 

risk-orient  post-release  audits  and  strictly 
monitor their results; and 
carry  out  customs  controls  on  operations 
made  by  authorised  economic  operators 
(AEO) 
risk 
management performed with respect to the 
different elements of these operations. 

account  of 

taking 

the 

90   See section 2.5.3 and OLAF report 2017, pp. 26-27. 

28 

The Commission also invites national competent 
authorities to make full use of the handbook on 
operational  customs  controls  based  on  Member 
States’  best  practices  and  of  the  Customs  audit 
guide.  

9.2.  Expenditure 

The  analysis  in  this  report  confirms  the  main 
trends  and  patterns  highlighted  in  previous 
years. 

Detection  rates  remain  high  for  programmes  in 
the  least-developed  regions  of  Europe  and  in 
fisheries,  and  low  in  relation  to  cross-border 
programmes. 

In  agriculture,  market  support  measures  are 
affected  by  a  limited  number  of  highly  costly 
irregularities, which still require an appropriate 
level of attention. 

The  focus  is  shifting  towards  fraud  aimed  at 
artificially  creating  the  conditions  to  access 
funding.  Several  Member  States  have  reported 
specific measures in this respect. 

Although  fewer  irregularities  and  less  fraud 
were  reported  in  2017,  the  average  financial 
amounts  increased,  suggesting  that controls  are 
better targeted. 

tips 

from 

analysis, 

Risk 
informants  or 
whistleblowers,  or  information  from  the  media 
can play a role in improving targeting, especially 
as it seems that their use is still not widespread. 
Information  from  judicial  enquiries  led  to  the 
discovery  of  some  non-fraudulent  irregularities 
involving  high  average  financial  amounts.  The 
same was true of controls that started because of 
information/requests 
irregularities 
identified by, an EU body. 

from,  or 

Recommendation 2 

Member States are invited to: 

 

 

further exploit the potential of risk analysis, 
tailoring the approach to the different types 
of expenditure and taking advantage of best 
practices  and  the  risk  elements  highlighted 
in this report; 

the  spontaneuous 
facilitate  and  assess 
reporting  of  potential 
irregularities  and 
strengthen the protection of whistleblowers, 
who  are  also  a 
for 
crucial 
investigative journalism;91 and 

source 

91   See  Strengthening  whistleblower  protection  at  EU  level, 
Communication  from  the  Commission  to  the  European 
Parliament, the Council and the European Economic and 
Social  Committee  (COM(2018)  214  final)  and  the 
proposal  for  a  Directive  on  the  protection  of  persons 
reporting breaches of Union law (COM(2018) 218 final). 

 
 
 
                                                 
                                                 
  promote  systematic  and  timely  cooperation 
administrative 

judicial 

and 

between 
authorities. 

All these measures would have a greater impact 
if embedded in a national anti-fraud strategy. 

9.3.  Cooperation at all levels 

The  above  recommendations  are  aimed  at 
strengthening  a  trend,  in  terms  of  policy  and 
legislative  initiatives,  that  is  already  visible  in 
several  Member  States  and  is  supported  by  the 
analysis presented in this report. 

fraud  and  keeping  up  with 

The  correct  and  targeted  use  of  data  and 
information is effective for stepping up the fight 
against 
the 
expectations  of  civil  society.  European  citizens 
look  at  their  own  country,  but 
not  only 
increasingly  judge  the  success  of  the  European 
project  on  the  basis  of  what  happens  in  other 
Member States. 

However,  the  necessary  data  and  information 
are  often  spread  across  several  authorities. 
Cooperation  at  national  and  EU  level  will  be  of 
the essence. 

Cooperation between judicial and administrative 
investigations  has  already  proven  even  more 
pivotal  for  combating  fraud  efficiently  and 
effectively.  

the 

level  of 

At 
the 
the  EU 
Commission  will  ensure  that  a  strong  and  fully 
functioning  OLAF complements  EPPO’s  criminal 
law approach with administrative investigations. 

institutions, 

29 

 
 
 
ANNEX 1 — IRREGULARITIES REPORTED AS FRAUDULENT IN 2017 

The  number  of  irregularities  reported  as  fraudulent  reflects  the  results  of  Member  States’  work  to  counter  fraud  and  other  illegal  activities  affecting  the  EU’s 
financial  interests.  The  figures  should  not  be  interpreted  as  indicating  the  level  of  fraud  in  the  Member  States’  territories.  This  annex  does  not  cover  non-EU 
(pre-accession) countries or direct expenditure. 

30 

NEURNEURNEURNEURNEURNEURBelgique/België2615 502 626Bulgaria163 852 238164 425173 916 663191 192 724Ceská republika8494 087336 609 802417 103 889Danmark38 119132 352440 471187 967Deutschland6981 201181 657 451242 638 652466 586 501Eesti82 199 72855 325 933137 525 6614310 930Éire/Ireland215 242215 242133 992Ellada226 628101 343 670121 370 2983114 131 439España5298 30220410 09625708 398343 911 652France91 326 25591 326 2559813 221 533Hrvatska2358 04711 052 81231 410 8598852 915Italia361 370 5713703 086392 073 657201 036 186Kypros3520 2123520 2124118 402Latvija14 35367 506 30577 510 6586257 710Lietuva61 246 395141 36071 287 755381 538 484Luxembourg115 857115 857Magyarország141 075 82361 479 560202 555 3834335 228Malta138 685138 6852366 319Nederland6183 8663421 6149605 48082 800 617Österreich1122 5381122 53875 654 247Polska7937 954 2976419 612 17314357 566 470522 526 634Portugal4176 9181231 604 7261631 781 6442269 552Romania647 973 8857567 164 7132649 63614175 788 2349413 780Slovenija146 89722 553 64732 600 5444159 180Slovensko2149 44477172 181 29979172 330 743Suomi/Finland126 786126 786483 383Sverige44 527 821United Kingdom240 118240 1189466 886TOTAL27659 880 690345320 390 825623380 921 15144176 386 708AgricultureInternal policiesCohesion policy and FisheriesPre-accessionTOTAL EXPENDITUREREVENUEMEMBER STATES 
 
 
 
ANNEX 2 — IRREGULARITIES NOT REPORTED AS FRAUDULENT IN 2017 

This annex does not cover non-EU (pre-accession) countries or direct expenditure. 

31 

NEURNEURNEURNEURNEURNEURBelgique/België17312 9402978 381516 092 879707 384 20018914 579 103Bulgaria12411 211 0377729 676 4181520 93221640 908 3881253 408Ceská republika251 083 01228260 949 35130762 032 363898 608 026Danmark9305 4973694 02012999 517552 038 865Deutschland612 437 9258310 519 24614412 957 1711 61785 727 353Eesti371 812 973242 821 971614 634 944111 149Éire/Ireland18802 856443 299 833624 102 689312 947 035Ellada1182 537 342504272 493 429622275 030 77110274 902España33517 433 3171 115366 925 9091 450384 359 22623078 825 931France1625 021 836264 008 6361889 030 47220016 578 121Hrvatska28511 70010586 362101 368 047482 466 1097262 098Italia57544 759 71155586 114 7641 130130 874 47511912 024 057Kypros303 214 441303 214 441110 564Latvija18779 102313 719 969494 499 0714196 843Lietuva1375 385 7757223 629 19820929 014 973191 026 160LuxembourgMagyarország20211 115 14414927 217 70435138 332 848205 909 986Malta13932 900232 317 833363 250 733Nederland451 481 953634 809 5131086 291 46644278 000 552Österreich22489 08082 418 922302 908 002491 739 162Polska1336 553 892499195 767 291632202 321 183461 453 150Portugal40126 556 51239263 808 45579390 364 967324 907 356Romania44560 524 561111 951368102 999 634814163 536 146232 778 540Slovenija14314 974411 438 319551 753 2938320 139Slovensko484 193 841248108 249 854296112 443 69511756 807Suomi/Finland7137 8107621 52314759 333271 947 211Sverige62 127 41811869 607172 997 0251656 704 023United Kingdom541 578 87341310 595 51046712 174 38379997 376 431TOTAL3 054210 401 9813990 3325 1291 395 860 591251 388 9798 2111 608 641 8824 195425 256 972TOTAL EXPENDITUREREVENUEAgricultureInternal policiesCohesion policy and FisheriesPre-accessionMEMBER STATES 
 
ANNEX 3 — LIST OF ACCOMPANYING STAFF WORKING DOCUMENTS 

1. 

Implementation of Article 325 by the Member States in 2017 (SWD(2018) 384) 

2.  Statistical  evaluation  of  irregularities  reported  for  own  resources,  natural  resources,  cohesion  policy  and 

pre-accession assistance and direct expenditure (SWD(2018) 386 – part 1 and 2) 

3.  Follow-up of recommendations to the Commission report on the protection of the EU’s financial interests 

— fight against fraud, 2016 (SWD(2018) 383) 

4.  Early  Detection  and  Exclusion  System  (EDES)  —  Panel  referred  to  in  Article 108  of  the  Financial 

Regulation (SWD(2018) 382) 

5.  Annual overview with information on the results of the Hercule III Programme in 2017 (SWD(2018) 381) 

6.  Assessment of the implementation of Article 43b of Regulation (EC) No 515/97 (SWD(2018) 385) 

32