COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT Follow-up by the Member States on the recommendations of the PIF Report 2019 Accompanying the document REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL 32nd Annual Report on the protection of the European Union's financial interests - Fight against fraud - 2020
Date: 2021-09-20
Institutions: European Anti-Fraud Office, European Commission
Subjects: EU Member State, EU budget, EU strategy, activity report, coronavirus disease, epidemic, fight against crime, financial control, fraud, fraud against the EU

EN 

  EN 

   EUROPEAN COMMISSION  Brussels, 20.9.2021  SWD(2021) 263 final  COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT Follow-up by the Member States on the recommendations of the PIF Report 2019 Accompanying the document REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL 32nd Annual Report on the protection of the European Union's financial interests - Fight against fraud - 2020 {COM(2021) 578 final} - {SWD(2021) 257 final} - {SWD(2021) 258 final} - {SWD(2021) 259 final} - {SWD(2021) 262 final} - {SWD(2021) 264 final}  
 
 
TABLE OF CONTENTS 

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

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ................................................................................................. 4 

1.  FOLLOW-UP BY RECOMMENDATION ................................................................ 8 

1.1.  Emergency spending ......................................................................................... 8 
1.1.1.  Keeping verification and monitoring measures at a high level ........... 9 
1.1.2.  Ensuring  the  use  of  emergency  procurement  based  on  a  case-by-

case assessment ................................................................................. 14 
1.1.3.  Transition to e-procurement processes .............................................. 17 
1.1.4.  Measures  to  further  strengthen  transparency  in  the  use  of  EU 

funds, in particular in relation to emergency procurement ............... 19 
1.2.  Reporting of irregularities ............................................................................... 22 

2.  MEMBER STATES’ REPLIES ................................................................................ 28 

2.1.  Austria ............................................................................................................. 28 
2.2.  Belgium ........................................................................................................... 29 
2.3.  Bulgaria ........................................................................................................... 31 
2.4.  Croatia ............................................................................................................. 49 
2.5.  Czechia ............................................................................................................ 51 
2.6.  Denmark .......................................................................................................... 54 
2.7.  Estonia ............................................................................................................. 54 
2.8.  Finland ............................................................................................................. 56 
2.9.  France .............................................................................................................. 57 
2.10.  Germany .......................................................................................................... 58 
2.11.  Greece   ........................................................................................................... 59 
2.12.  Hungary ........................................................................................................... 63 
2.13.  Ireland   ........................................................................................................... 68 
 ........................................................................................................... 70 
2.14.  Italy 
2.15.  Latvia 
 ........................................................................................................... 72 
2.16.  Lithuania .......................................................................................................... 75 
2.17.  Luxembourg .................................................................................................... 76 
2.18.  Malta 
 ........................................................................................................... 77 
2.19.  Netherlands ...................................................................................................... 79 
2.20.  Poland   ........................................................................................................... 80 
2.21.  Portugal  ........................................................................................................... 85 
2.22.  Romania........................................................................................................... 86 
2.23.  Slovakia ........................................................................................................... 90 
2.24.  Slovenia ........................................................................................................... 98 
 ......................................................................................................... 100 
2.25.  Spain 
2.26.  Sweden  ......................................................................................................... 103 

EN 

  EN 

 
 
 
EN 

  EN 

 
 
 
 
 
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS 

AFCOS 

AMIF 

CA 

CRII 

DG 

EAFRD 

EAGF 

EC 

EMFF 

ERDF 

ESF 

ESI 

IMS 

ISF 

MA 

OP 

Anti-fraud coordination service 

Asylum, Migration and Integration Fund 

Certifying authority 

Coronavirus Response Investment Initiative 

Directorate-General 

European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development 

European Agricultural Guarantee Fund 

European Commission 

European Maritime and Fisheries Fund 

European Regional Development Fund 

European Social Fund 

Emergency Support Instrument 

Irregularity Management System 

Internal Security Fund 

Managing authority 

Operational Programme 

OTSC 

On-the-spot checks 

PIF 

PPE 

VAT 

Protection of the EU’s financial interests 

Personal protective equipment 

Value added tax 

EN 

  EN 

 
 
 
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

In the 2019 report on the protection of the European Union’s financial interests, known as the 
‘PIF  Report’,  the  Commission  made  a  set  of  recommendations  to  the  Member  States 
concerning  emergency  spending  and  the  reporting  of  irregularities.  This  document  collects 
and  summarises  the  Member  States’  replies  for  the  follow-up  on  the  2019  PIF  report 
recommendations  and  provides  updated  information,  initiatives  and  measures  taken  in 
2019/2020 in the respective areas of expenditure.  

Recommendations on emergency spending 

The Commission recalls that verifications and monitoring measures should be kept at 
a high level.  

Emergency procurement should be used on the basis of a case-by-case assessment.  

The  present  situation  is  also  the  right  opportunity  to  complete  the  transition  to  e-
procurement processes for those Member States which have not already achieved this. 

Member States should consider the possibility of further strengthening transparency 
in the use of EU funds, in particular in relation to emergency procurement. 

Spending related to the COVID-19 crisis has and will put further pressure on EU bodies and 
national authorities disbursing EU funds. The Commission has stepped up its fraud prevention 
work to ensure that EU money continues to get the highest possible level of protection against 
fraudsters who may try to take advantage of the current situation. 

Likewise,  the  Member  States  were  asked  not  to  lower  their  guards  against  the  risks 
highlighted in the 2019 PIF report.  

A total of 22 Member States1 reported ensuring that verification and monitoring measures are 
kept  at  a high level;  Malta and Slovakia reported partial  implementation of this point.  Most 
Member  States  stated  that  the  current  extraordinary  situation  due  the  COVID-19  outbreak 
does not affect the regime of mandatory verifications and monitoring measures and that these 
are being kept at a high level nevertheless.  

Several  Member  States  have  taken  specific  measures  to  adjust  to  the  current  extraordinary 
situation.  For  example,  Bulgaria  reported  carrying  out  verifications  through  telephone 
interviews;  Greece  and  Croatia  issued  special  instructions  on  alternative  approaches  for  on-
the-spot checks. Ireland, Spain and Finland reported use of IT tools for remote checks. Italy 
updated its first-level control manuals for remote on-the-spot checks. Latvia reported paying 
extra attention to  cases involving  force majeure  where COVID-19  was cited as justification 
for extending deadlines.  

1  Belgium,  Bulgaria,  Czechia,  Germany,  Estonia,  Ireland,  Greece,  Spain,  France,  Croatia,  Italy,  Latvia, 
Lithuania,  Luxembourg,  Hungary,  the  Netherlands,  Poland,  Portugal,  Romania,  Slovenia,  Finland  and 
Sweden. 

4 

 
 
 
                                                 
Poland  put  special  arrangements  in  place,  making  it  easier  to  implement  and  account  for 
projects co-financed out of EU funds. The arrangements include suspending application of the 
guidelines  issued  by  the  Polish  Minister  for  Regional  Development  and  the  possibility  to 
discontinue  checks  and  audits  in  exceptional  situations  or,  where  feasible,  perform  them 
remotely  or  electronically.  Slovenia  reported  that  measures  related  to  the  COVID-19 
pandemic  were  generally  applied  only  based  on  data  from  official  records  managed  by 
verified state institutions or legal entities founded by the State. This  was one of the reasons 
why there was significantly less suspicion of fraud or artificially created conditions.  

In all, 23 Member States2 reported that they fully ensured the use of emergency procurement 
based on a case-by-case assessment. Slovakia reported partial implementation. Most Member 
States  stated  that  any  cases  of  emergency  procurement  were  duly  checked  in  advance  and 
subject to strict rules, regardless of the COVID-19 crisis. Several Member States, like Greece, 
Spain,  France,  Croatia,  Poland  and  Sweden,  have  also  issued  guidelines  on  emergency 
procurement in the context of COVID-19.  

Some  18  Member  States3  reported  full  implementation  of  the  transition  to  e-procurement 
processes; 64 reported partial implementation.  

On  measures  to  further  strengthen  transparency  in  the  use  of  EU  funds,  in  particular  for 
emergency procurement, 17 Member States5 replied that they had done so, while 86 reported 
that they had not.  

Further measures taken by Member States include testing the use of the ARACHNE system7, 
setting up a platform to report fraud and corruption8, guidelines on emergency procurements 
emphasising  the  importance  of  transparency  and  efficient  use  of  financial  resources9,  and 
other measures to enhance transparency.10 

Most of the Member States that have not  taken any further measures reported that they had 
not done so because the measures already in place were considered sufficient.  

Recommendation on reporting of irregularities 

For  the  2014-2020  programming  period,  the  reporting  of  irregularities,  in  particular 
non-fraudulent ones, needs to be closely monitored. 

2   Belgium,  Bulgaria,  Czechia,  Germany,  Estonia,  Ireland,  Greece,  Spain,  France,  Croatia,  Italy,  Latvia,  
Lithuania, Luxembourg, Hungary, Malta, the Netherlands, Poland Portugal, Romania, Slovenia, Finland and 
Sweden. 

3   Belgium,  Bulgaria,  Czechia,  Denmark,  Germany,  Estonia,  Greece,  Croatia,  Italy,  Latvia,  Luxembourg, 

Hungary, Malta, Portugal, Romania, Slovenia, Finland and Sweden. 

4 

Spain, France, Lithuania, the Netherlands, Poland and Slovakia. 

5  Bulgaria,  Germany,  Estonia,  Ireland,  Greece,  Spain,  Croatia,  Italy,  Latvia,  Lithuania,  Luxembourg, 

Hungary, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovenia and Sweden. 

6  Belgium, Czechia, France, Malta, the Netherlands, Austria, Slovakia and Finland. 

7   Estonia. 

8   Greece and Lithuania.  

9   Latvia.  

10  Hungary and Romania.  

5 

 
 
                                                 
The current programming period saw a significant decrease in the detection and reporting of 
non-fraudulent  irregularities  compared  to  the  previous  period,  particularly  in  relation  to 
cohesion  policy.  The  Commission  recommended  careful  monitoring  to  ensure  that  the 
decrease is the result of new preventative measures, and not of increased deficits in detection 
and reporting.  

Some  22  Member  States11  reported  full  implementation  of  this  recommendation.  A  further 
four Member States12 replied that they had partly implemented it. 

Most Member States ensured that their reporting of irregularities was carefully monitored.  

Belgium reported carrying out  an additional check at  each annual  closure, during which the 
managing,  certifying  and  audit  authorities  compared  their  data  so  that  any  irregularity  was 
duly reported. The Danish Fisheries Agency stated that every quarter of the year, the agency’s 
control  team  coordinates  with  the  agency’s  economics  department  over  the  detection  of 
irregularities. Croatia and Slovakia also mentioned such quarterly irregularity reports. 

The Bulgarian managing authorities replied that their reporting of irregularities was subject to 
strict controls.  Lithuania reported that the information on irregularities and related data  was 
constantly  monitored  in  the  2014–2020  European  Union  Structural  Funds  Management  and 
Monitoring  System  (SFMIS2014),  which  was  the  main  source  of  information  for  reporting 
irregularities to the Commission. Poland reported that it duly complied with its obligations to 
report  any  irregularities  found  in  respect  of  EU  funds  to  the  European  Commission  and  to 
monitor them on a continuous basis. 

Czechia replied that the reporting of irregularities for the 2014–2020 programming period was 
ensured in accordance with the methodological guide for the financial flows of programmes 
co-financed by the European Structural Funds, the Cohesion Fund and the European Maritime 
and Fisheries Fund for the programming period 2014–2020. 

The  Estonian  authorities  reported  that  all  implementing  bodies  must  report  all  detected  or 
prevented  irregularities  via  the  electronic  system.  Ireland  reported  the  continued  use  of  the 
irregularity management system (IMS), but stated that further training for staff of managing 
authorities was required. Greece explained that not all managing authorities and intermediate 
bodies  (IBs)  had  been  registered  in  the  IMS  for  the  direct  electronic  transmission  of 
irregularities, but that this process was ongoing. 

Germany  and  the  Netherlands  reported  that  their  respective  advanced  management/control 
systems  had  been  in  place  for  years,  and  included  a  major  focus  on  the  reporting  of 
irregularities.  

All the relevant Spanish authorities reported that the reporting of non-fraudulent irregularities 
had been monitored similarly to previous years and in particular similarly to the 2007–2013 
programming period. Latvia reported that irregularities were monitored and that no significant 
reduction in the irregularities had been identified. 

11  Belgium, Bulgaria,  Czechia,  Denmark, Germany, Estonia,  Spain, France, Croatia, Italy,  Latvia,  Lithuania, 

Luxembourg, Hungary, Malta, Austria, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Sweden and Finland. 

12 

Ireland, Greece, the Netherlands and Slovenia.  

6 

 
 
                                                 
The  Hungarian  AFCOS  operates  a  working  group  on  irregularity  reporting  to  ensure  its 
irregularity  reporting  obligation  under  the  EU  sectoral  regulations  is  met  uniformly  and  in 
full; an additional aim is to make the content of irregularity reports more useful for preventing 
domestic fraud/irregularities. Finland reported that in their training sessions held in 2020, the 
certifying  authority  and  managing  authority  had  reminded  the  intermediate  bodies  about 
keeping information on irregularities updated. 

7 

 
 
 
 
1. 

FOLLOW-UP BY RECOMMENDATION 

Methodology and thematic analysis 

The  following  section  provides  a  comprehensive  overview  on  the  implementation  of  each 
recommendation  by  the  Member  States  and  summarises  the  replies  received  for  each 
recommendation. This section is divided into two sub-sections, one for the recommendations 
on  emergency  spending  and  one  for  the  reporting  of  irregularities.  Each  recommendation  is 
analysed first by providing results as to the number of Member States that addressed each of 
the recommendation questions and second, by summarising of the most important details they 
provided. The Member States’ original replies are listed later in this document, under Section 
2: ‘Member States’ Replies’. 

1.1.  Emergency spending 

The  Commission  asked  the  following  questions  to  the  Member  States  with  regard  to 
addressing the first set of recommendations: 

Q.1.  Have  you  ensured  that  verification  and  monitoring  measures  are  kept  at  a  high 
level? 

If  you  implemented  fully  the  recommendation,  could  you  indicate  how  this  was  achieved? 
Can you share any specific finding in relation to such measures? Have detections increased, 
decreased or remained stable overall? 

If  you  implemented  partially  the  recommendation,  could  you  explain  why  you  think  that  it 
was a partial implementation and why a full implementation was not possible? 

If you did not implement the recommendation, could you please explain why? 

Q.2  Have  you  ensured  that  emergency  procurement  is  used  on  the  basis  of  a  case-by-
case assessment? 

If you implemented fully the recommendation, could you indicate which procedures you have 
put in place to achieve that?  

If  you  implemented  partially  the  recommendation,  could  you  explain  why  you  think  that  it 
was a partial implementation and why a full implementation was not possible? 

If you did not implement the recommendation, could you please explain why? 

Q.3 Have you already completed the transition to e-procurement processes?  

If partially or not, could you briefly explain at which point you are in the process? 

Q.4 Have you taken any measures to further strengthen transparency in the use of EU 
funds, in particular in relation to emergency procurement?  

If  yes,  could  you  specify  which  ones  and  how  they  strengthen  the  existing  transparency 
framework? 

8 

 
 
If not, could you explain why and how your current system already ensures an adequate level 
of transparency? 

The  table  below  represents  the  overall  results  of  the  implementation  of  the  Commission’s 
recommendations on emergency spending, based on the Member States’ replies to each of the 
questions above.  

Table 1: Implementation of Commission’s recommendations on emergency spending by MS 

1.1.1.  Keeping verification and monitoring measures at a high level 

The  Member  States  were  asked  to  provide  information  on  whether  they  had  ensured  that 
verification and monitoring measures were kept at a high level. 

9 

Q1Q2Q3Q4BEBGCZDKDEEEIEELESFRHRITCYLVLTLUHUMTNLATPLPTROSISKFISEfully implementedpartly implementednot implementednot applicableno answer 
 
 
 
A total of 22 Member States13 replied that they had fully implemented this point. Malta and 
Slovakia  reported  partial  implementation,  while  Austria  had  not  implemented  it.  Denmark 
stated that the question was not of relevance to it and Cyprus did not reply to the question. 

Several Member States provided details for their replies (in summary)14: 

Belgium  reported  that  the  body  managing  the  ERDF  in  Flanders  still  applied  the  usual 
verification  measures,  with  no  exceptions.  The  Flemish  Government’s  Department  of 
Agriculture  and  Fisheries  kept  track  of  all  deviations  from  the  normal  functioning  of 
verifications  and  control  systems  and  only  lowered  control  rates  for  measures  that  had  a 
record of low error rates. For other measures, the department applied either alternative checks 
or  a  small  adaptation  of  the  on-the-spot  check  where  possible,  or  delayed  the  on-the-spot 
check until the situation improved. Overall, the department kept the same level of assurance 
during the COVID19-crisis. 

Bulgaria  reported  on  measures  taken  by  several  managing  authorities,  an  executive  agency 
and the National Fund Directorate within the Ministry of Finance to ensure full verification of 
expenditure  during  the  COVID-19  pandemic.  These  measures  include  verifications  through 
telephone interviews  and updates to the manual  for the management  and  implementation  of 
the  operational  programme  and  the  management  and  control  systems  of  the  operational 
programme  in  line  with  the  needs  arising  from  the  coronavirus  outbreak.  Besides  that,  the 
usual layers of monitoring, verifications and controls remained in place so that overall, a high 
level and quality of monitoring and checks could be assured. 

Czechia reported that its verification and monitoring measures were constantly run at a high 
level. The processes for awarding public contracts in procurement procedure are electronic by 
law and electronic tools must be used to receive bids. Buyers are also obliged to store their 
procurement  procedure  documentation,  which  enables  effective  verification  and  monitoring. 
Internal  and  external  audits  and  other  compulsory  checks  of  recipients  and  managing 
authorities  alike  are  carried  out  as  planned  despite  some  difficulties  and  challenges.  The 
managing authority is closely cooperating with auditors and recommendations are addressed 
in time and subsequently also duly reviewed. Detections have remained stable. 

Germany  reported  that  it  had  advanced  management/control  systems  in  the  agriculture  and 
fisheries  sector.  These  systems  have  been  operating  at  a  high  level  for  years  and  are 
continuously adapted to new challenges and objectives. For the measures under the ERDF and 
the  ESF,  the  existing  high  level  has  been  maintained,  in  particular  for  the  administrative 
checks to be carried out. Germany continues to carry out an annual self-assessment to combat 
fraud. The number of cases of fraud and suspected fraud remains low. 

The  Estonian  authorities  responsible  for  the  ESI,  agricultural-fisheries  and  internal  policies 
Funds  report  that  they  will  continue  with  the  professional  verification  and  monitoring 
measures. The implementing agency for agricultural and fisheries Funds started to test using 
ARACHNE. 

13  Belgium,  Bulgaria,  Czechia,  Germany,  Estonia,  Ireland,  Greece,  Spain,  France,  Croatia,  Italy,  Latvia, 
Lithuania,  Luxembourg,  Hungary,  the  Netherlands,  Poland,  Portugal,  Romania,  Slovenia,  Finland  and 
Sweden. 

14   For more detailed information see Section 2 ‘Member States’ replies’.  

10 

 
 
                                                 
Throughout  the  COVID-19  pandemic,  Ireland’s  Southern  Regional  Assembly  (SRA)  and 
Northern and Western Regional Assembly (NWRA) have continued Article 125 management 
verifications, albeit remotely. All relevant areas of  the verification process are covered. The 
Department of Agriculture, Food and Marine implements robust administrative checks on all 
aid applications and procurement practices that are in line with EU and national legislation. It 
also performs on-the-spot checks, which satisfy the fund requirements. The accounting officer 
is  provided  with  confirmation  on  an  annual  basis  that  these  checks  are  in  place,  for 
administered  funds  charged  to  national  and  EU  budgets  from  senior  management.  External 
auditors review the internal financial controls and any recommendations are acted upon. 

The Greek Special Institutional Support Service reported that the provisions of the regulatory 
framework  on  administrative  verifications  continued  to  apply.  Special  instructions  were 
issued  for  on  the-spot  checks  for  the  2019–2020  accounting  year,  following  the  measures 
taken to contain the COVID-19 pandemic, including alternative approaches taking account of 
the  restrictions  in  place.  Finally,  when  the  annual  accounts  are  submitted,  the  authorities 
confirm  that  the  instructions  have  been  followed  and  that  adequate  administrative 
verifications have been carried out on the expenditure included in the accounts. 

All  the  relevant  Spanish  authorities  reported  that  the  verification  and  monitoring  measures 
had been kept at high level, similar to previous years. This was due to the implementation of 
measures  such  as  making  intensive  use  of  IT  tools  to  perform  the  checks  and  verifications 
remotely.  In  some  cases,  on-the-spot  verifications  were  delayed  due  to  the  restrictions 
lockdown  measures  adopted  during  2020.  However,  the  verifications  have  been,  or  will  be, 
carried out when the circumstances allowed (or allow) the corresponding authorities to do so 
properly,  making  use  of  the  flexibility  allowed  by  different  Commission  DGs  in  this  sense. 
There is no evidence that the COVID-19 crisis has influenced the level of detections.  

Following the outbreak of COVID-19 and its consequences, the French National Agency for 
Territorial Cohesion fully relayed to the ERDF managing authorities the instructions set out 
by  the  European  Commission  and  the  platform  for  replies  to  national  authorities  on 
Coronavirus Response Investment Initiative Plus (CRII+) measures. 

In  Croatia,  the  procedures  in  place  remain  fully  applicable  under  the  current  exceptional 
circumstances  triggered  by  the  COVID-19  outbreak.  The  COVID-19  outbreak  posed 
particular  difficulties  for  healthcare  facilities  and  residential  homes  for  the  elderly  and 
seriously  ill  adults  and  adults  with  disabilities.  To  respond  to  this  situation,  the  Ministry  of 
Regional  Development  and  EU  Funds,  the  managing  authority  for  the  competitiveness  and 
cohesion 2014-2020 operational programme, granted an exemption for on-the-spot checks of 
operations in these facilities. Under the exemption, the checks could be performed remotely in 
real time using IT tools. 

The  emergency  caused  by  COVID-19  does  not  change  or  alter  any  Italian  regulatory  or 
statutory  requirement.  At  national  level,  to  ensure  that  verification  and  monitoring  of 
operations could continue, the Agency for Territorial Cohesion, updated the first-level control 
manuals for both programmes so that on-the-spot checks could be carried out remotely. 

The  Latvian  Rural  Support  Service  (responsible  for  EMFF,  EAFRD  and  EAGF)  has  not 
scaled  back  inspection  and  monitoring  during  the  COVID-19  crisis.  For  area  payments,  a 
number  of  control  tools  were  introduced  and  developed  to  make  on-the-spot  checks  more 
efficient.  These  include  the  use  of  drones  (enabling  inspections  to  be  carried  out  faster  and 
more  efficiently).  For  investment  projects,  the  Rural  Support  Service  performed  remote 

11 

 
 
inspections.  The  Central  Finance  and  Contracting  Agency  (responsible  for  ESF,  ERDF  and 
Cohesion Fund) paid extra attention to cases where force majeure due to COVID-19 was cited 
as justification for extending deadlines. Given the extensive control mechanisms available and 
applied, Latvia did not find any increase in breaches of procurement procedure that could be 
attributed to the COVID-19 emergency. 

Lithuania reported having adjusted its public procurement inspection questionnaires to take 
account  of  changes  to  the  Law  on  public  procurement  and  accompanying  secondary 
legislation in order to ensure implementation of EU rules. 

To  ensure  the  integrity-based,  transparent  and  accountable  use  of  public  funds,  the 
Hungarian Public Procurement Authority ensures that verification and monitoring measures 
are kept at a high level when reviewing the legality of public procurements. Methods in place 
to  ensure  high-quality  verification  and  monitoring  include  checking  the  legality  of  notices, 
checking  the  legality  of  negotiated  procedures  without  publication,  and  checking  the 
performance and amendment of contracts.  In terms of EU support, the managing authorities 
and  the  ministry  responsible  for  public  procurement  carry  out  checks  on  the  regularity  of 
public procurement procedures conducted using support awarded under EU programmes. As 
the  audit  authority,  the  Directorate-General  for  Audit  of  European  Funds  (EUTAF)  is 
responsible for carrying out system audits, carrying out sample audits on projects, monitoring 
the  findings  of  audit  reports,  following  up  on  recommendations  and  implementing  action 
plans. 

Irrespective  of  the  COVID-19  crisis,  the  Maltese  Department  of  Contracts  has  always  
endeavoured to ensure that public funds (both local and EU) are closely monitored in order to 
ensure  a  high  level  of  protection.  At  present,  any  emergency  spending  above  the  local 
threshold (i.e. above EUR 139 000 excl. VAT) must be validated by presenting the applicable 
documentation to justify and substantiate requests to use less restrictive procurement methods. 
In  addition,  if  the  estimated  procurement  value  is  above  EUR 1 million,  the  contracting 
authority  concerned  must  attain  budget  clearance  from  the  Ministry  for  Finance  and 
Employment.  Further  to  the  above,  as  and  where  applicable,  the  managing  and  auditing 
bodies run checks to ascertain that public funds are properly managed. 

Austria  reported  that  it  had  not  implemented  the  recommendation  because  there  was  no 
specific EU-related emergency procurement in place in the agriculture sector.  

In the context of the COVID-19 pandemic, Poland has put in place a number of mechanisms 
to ensure appropriate monitoring of the spending of, accounting for and control of EU funds. 
Special  arrangements  were  put  in  place,  making  it  easier  to  implement  and  account  for 
projects  co-financed  using  EU  funds.  These  include  suspending  the  application  of  the 
guidelines issued by the Ministry for Regional Development and the possibility to discontinue 
checks  and  audits  in  exceptional  situations  or,  where  feasible,  perform  them  remotely  or 
electronically. As a result, the control work, including system audits and project expenditure 
checks,  is  being  carried  out  efficiently  despite  the  constraints  arising  from  the  epidemic. 
Furthermore,  the  Law  on  public  procurement  has  been  amended  to  strengthen  control 
mechanisms  and measures for monitoring public procurement. The verification mechanisms 
also function properly for the Agricultural Funds. 

Portugal reported that procurement in response to the pandemic was being monitored at the 
highest  level,  with  reports  sent  to  the  relevant  supervisory  authorities  and  the  Ministry  of 
Finance. 

12 

 
 
The  Romanian  Ministry  of  Investments  and  European  Projects  reported  that  ANAP,  the 
national agency for public procurement, has performed standard ex ante checks to determine 
whether the conditions for running negotiated procedures without publication were being met, 
and whether such procedures were being carried out properly. There is a standard checklist for 
managing  authorities,  whose  checks  are  ex  post  of  the  procedure  itself,  but  ex ante  of  the 
reimbursement of expenses from European funds. This checklist indicates how to check how 
beneficiaries  have  met  the  specific  requirements  to  use  the  exemptions  provided  for  in 
procurement legislation. 

Slovenia’s Agency for Agricultural Markets and Rural Development  (AAMRD) has a well-
established  system  for  detecting  and  preventing  fraud  and  artificially  created  conditions,  as 
well  as  for  preventing  conflicts  of  interest.  Applications  for  measures  related  to  the 
COVID-19 epidemic are generally decided only based on data from official records managed 
by verified state institutions or legal entities founded by the state, which is one of the reasons 
why  there  is  significantly  less  suspicion  of  fraud  or  artificially  created  conditions  in  these 
measures. Each application received so far has been examined administratively using the four-
eye principle; for each application, Slovenia checks whether there is a suspicion of fraud and 
artificially created conditions and whether there may be a conflict of interest.  In the case of 
advance payments, it was consistently checked whether the required securities were lodged. 

Based  on  the  replies  provided  by  the  Slovak  AFCOS  partners,  verification  and  monitoring 
measures  have  been  maintained  at  a  high  level,  even  during  the  pandemic.  Managing 
authorities  regularly  update  their  procedures  and,  if  relevant,  measures  allowing  for  a  more 
flexible  approach  in  this  particular  situation  are  adopted.  However,  one  of  the  current 
challenges is the planning and performance of on-the-spot checks, as personal contacts should 
be kept to a minimum during the pandemic. 

Finland reported that during the COVID-19 pandemic, the managing authority had instructed 
the intermediate bodies to conduct checks and monitoring using the means and tools already 
in  place  (such  as  remote  access  and  electronically),  while  maintaining  high  quality  and  not 
reducing the quantity. 

In  Sweden,  18 379  procurement  procedures  were  initiated  in  accordance  with  procurement 
regulations  in  2019.  The  simplified  procedure  is  the  most  commonly  used  procurement 
procedure. Most public contracts run for 3–4 years (including any extension options). In 57% 
of  all  procedures,  1–3  tenders  are  submitted.  The  average  number  of  tenders  submitted  in 
2019  was  4.5.  The  average  number  of  tenders  submitted  decreased  for  several  years  before 
2018 and 2019. Of all procurement procedures, 6.6% underwent a review procedure in 2020. 
Directive-compliant  procurement  is  subject  to  a  review  procedure  more  often  than 
procurement not governed by the EU Public Procurement Directives. Procedures with many 
tenderers  undergo  a  review  procedure  more  often  than  procedures  that  have  only  a  few 
tenderers. 

13 

 
 
1.1.2.  Ensuring  the  use  of  emergency  procurement  based  on  a  case-by-case 

assessment 

The  Member  States  were  asked  to  provide  information  on  whether  they  ensured  that 
emergency procurement was based on a case-by-case assessment. Some 23 Member States15 
replied that they fully implemented this point, and Slovakia reported partial implementation. 
Austria  does  not  implement  it.  Denmark  stated  that  the  question  was  not  of  relevance  to  it, 
while Cyprus did not reply. 

Several Member States provided details for their replies (summarised below)16. 

Belgium  reported  that  the  body  managing  the  ERDF  in  Flanders  still  applied  the  usual 
for  correct 
verification  measures;  every  public  procurement  contract 
implementation  (100% monitoring). Use of the  emergency procedure is  an exception that is 
always  subject  to  thorough  checks.  The  Flemish  Government’s  Department  of  Agriculture 
and  Fisheries  reported  that  procurement  procedures  are  seldom  used  and,  if  they  are,  are 
always based on a case-by-case assessment. 

is  checked 

The Bulgarian Law on public procurement provides for various options that allow for quick 
procurement,  including  in  cases  of  extreme  urgency.  These  possibilities are  in  line  with  the 
relevant European directives. In cases where there is an urgent need to select a contractor, the 
contracting  authority  has  the  possibility  to  shorten  the  time  limits  for  submission  of 
applications  and/or  bids  for  competitive  procedures.  Under  the  Law  on  procurement,  the 
contracting  authority  must  justify  the  exceptional  circumstances.  In  this  vein,  the  award  of 
emergency  contracts  in  the  country  is  subject  to  legally  binding  rules  and  a  case-by-case 
assessment by the individual contracting authority. 

The Czech Law on public procurement provides for emergency procurement procedures. The 
use of these procedures is in the sole responsibility of the contracting authority and in the case 
of  control,  the  fulfilment  of  the  conditions  for  their  use  will  be  assessed  on  a  case-by-case 
basis.  These  procedures  should  be  used  by  the  contracting  authority  exclusively  for  urgent 
purchases  related  to  managing  the  current  threat.  However,  none  of  the  Czech  managing 
authorities providing input to this document used emergency procurement in 2020. 

Germany  replied  that  it  fully  applied  the  relevant  rules  on  procurement,  including  on 
e-procurement. 

The  Estonian  authorities  responsible  for  the  ESI  and  HOME  Funds  reported  that  all 
emergency procurements were checked before payment. The implementing agency for AGRI 
and  FISH  Funds  reported  that  it  did  not  foresee  any  COVID-19  related  emergency 
procurement. 

Ireland reported emergency procurement of personal protective equipment (PPE) due to the 
ongoing COVID-19 crisis. The managing authorities ensured that the process was fully in line 
with the Procurement Directives. 

15  Belgium,  Bulgaria,  Czechia,  Germany,  Estonia,  Ireland,  Greece,  Spain,  France,  Croatia,  Italy,  Latvia, 
Lithuania,  Luxembourg,  Hungary,  Malta,  the  Netherlands,  Poland,  Portugal,  Romania,  Slovenia,  Finland 
and Sweden. 

16   For more detailed information see Section 2 ‘Member States’ Replies’. 

14 

 
 
                                                 
Greece’s  Single  Public  Procurement  Authority  (HSPPA)  issued  a  guideline  on  Specific 
matters  concerning  the  award  and  management  of  public  contracts  in  the  context  of  the 
response to the COVID-19 health crisis and the measures taken to prevent the spread of the 
virus.  The  purpose  of  the  guideline  is  to  help  contracting  authorities/entities  and  economic 
operators make correct use of the possibilities offered by the EU Directives and of the special 
or  exceptional  time-limited  provisions  established  by  law.  In  addition,  the  HSPPA  issued 
opinions  on  legislative  proposals  that  provided  for  derogations  from  national  legislation  for 
emergency procurement. 

The Spanish State Public Procurement Advisory Board adopted and published in April 2020 
an  information  note  addressed  to  the  contracting  authorities,  which  clearly  states  that  the 
COVID-19  pandemic  does  not  itself  allow  contracting  authorities  to  use  the  emergency 
procedure  for  public  procurement.  The  note  states  that  contracting  authorities  can  use  this 
procedure only based on a case-by-case assessment. The purpose of the assessment is to check 
if each case’s circumstances meet the specific requirements laid down by law for use of this 
exceptional procedure. 

France  replied  that  the  European  Commission’s  communiqué  on  the  ‘mon  ANCT’ 
information-sharing  space  of  the  national  agency  for  territorial  cohesion  (ANCT)  had  been 
sent  to  the  managing  authorities.  Meetings  and  working  groups  have  been  organised,  and 
national  CRII  FAQs  and  a  management  note  have  been  drawn  up.  These  cover  most  of  the 
relevant provisions and highlight the exceptional nature of emergency procurements as a case-
by-case derogation. 

The  Croatian  Law  on  public  procurement  allows  contracting  authorities  to  award  under 
certain circumstances public procurement contracts based on a negotiated procedure without 
prior publication of a call for tenders. This is specifically the case if the deadlines for open or 
restricted  procedures  or  competitive  negotiated  procedures  cannot  be  met  due  to  extreme 
urgency  caused  by  events  the  contracting  authority  could  not  foresee.  However,  the 
circumstances invoked by the contracting authority to justify extreme urgency must not in any 
event be attributable to its own actions. The European Commission’s communication on the 
method  of  procurement  in  the  conditions  of  a  pandemic  has  been  published  on  the  Public 
Procurement  Portal,  and  the  Croatian  Ministry  of  Economy  and  Sustainable  Development 
provides expert assistance by giving opinions to those entities that need it. 

Italy’s  ‘Cura  Italia  Decree’  on  measures  to  strengthen  the  National  Health  Service  and 
provide economic support to families, workers and businesses in response to the COVID-19 
epidemiological  emergency  does  not  provide  for  any  derogation  from  ordinary  open  public 
procurement  procedures.  However,  the  ‘Cura  Italia  Decree’  lays  down  specific  and  limited 
derogations from the ordinary procedures provided for in the Public Procurement Code for the 
duration  of  the  health  emergency.  In  particular,  provision  has  been  made  for  exceptional 
procedures to purchase specific categories of goods and services. 

According to the Latvian Law on public procurement, emergency procurement is based on a 
case-by-case  assessment.  In  such  cases,  the  contracting  authorities  are  responsible  for 
justifying the use of the negotiated procedure. 

Lithuania reported that emergency purchases had separate requirements. 

Hungary  reported  that  in  2019,  there  had  been  just  273  instances  where  contracting 
authorities  had  informed  the  President  of  the  Public  Procurement  Authority  that  they  were 

15 

 
 
initiating  a  negotiated  procedure  without  publication.  By  comparison,  there  were  329 
negotiated  procedures  without  publication  in  2018,  482  in  2017  and  870  in  2016.  The 
President of the authority’s legal  review powers  include rigorous verification in  all cases to 
check that the conditions are met for using the negotiated procedure without publication on an 
exceptional basis. If the Authority establishes during its review that not all the conditions are 
met  for  the  legal  basis  chosen,  or  that  the  legal  basis  cannot  be  clearly  established,  it  will 
request  clarification  to  remedy  the  infringement.  This  paves  the  way  in  such  cases  for  the 
organisation  of  a  public  procurement  procedure  with  publication.  Contracting  authorities 
generally respond to requests for clarification immediately and in full. 

Malta  reported  that  all  emergency  spending  was  on  a  case-by-case  basis.  Contracting 
authorities  must  present  duly  justified  cases  to  the  competent  authority,  which  in  turn 
approves  the  request  (or  not),  based  on  the  explanations  provided  and  documentation 
submitted. 

The Netherlands and Austria replied that they had had no emergency procurements in place.  

Under Polish public procurement law, contracting authorities in EU projects are required to 
use  public  procurement  procedures  in  emergency  situations  on  the  basis  of  a  case-by-case 
assessment  in  accordance  with  Directive  2014/24/EU.  The  President  of  the  Public 
Procurement  Office  and  both  the  audit  authority  and  coordinating  authority  recommend  the 
case-by-case approach as the standard method  for contracting authorities to  award contracts 
under  all operational  programmes. Managing authorities, intermediate bodies, implementing 
bodies  and  other  authorised  control  bodies  verify  whether  the  procurement  procedure  has 
been carried out  correctly  in  accordance with  this principle. The Public  Procurement Office 
has  published  instructions  on  how  to  apply  the  extraordinary  arrangements,  and  the 
coordinating authority has further disseminated these instructions via the managing authorities 
in  the  context  of the  principle  of  competitive  tendering,  which  applies  below  the  thresholds 
laid down in the Law on public procurement. 

Portugal reported that the procurement procedures had been conducted in line with the legal 
framework specifically established for the purpose. 

In  April  2020,  the  Public  Procurement  Coordination  Unit  of  the  Romanian  Ministry  of 
European  Funds  explained  to  all  managing  authorities  that  negotiations  procedures  without 
publication  should  be  applied  as  exceptions  under  stricter  conditions  and  asked  them  to 
inform  all  beneficiaries  of  this.  At  the  beginning  of  this  year,  it  was  underlined  to  all 
managing authorities that: (i) for public procurement verifications, it is important to take into 
account and monitor additional risks arising during the award of contracts signed during the 
pandemic;  and  (ii)  emergency  procurement  should  be  used  only  on  case-by-case  basis.  The 
Romanian Government issued an emergency ordinance on emergency medical stocks, as well 
as some measures  related to the establishment of quarantine. These measures authorised the 
National Office for Centralised Procurement (ONAC) to procure a list of medical emergency 
products  of  strict  necessity,  only  via  negotiated  procedures  without  prior  publication.  The 
decisions  on  these  procurement  procedures  were  approved  based  on  individual  analysis. 
ONAC  properly  managed  all  emergency  procurement  procedures  and  implemented  the 
Commission Communication on how to carry out such procurements. 

Slovenia  replied  that  it  had  not  carried  out  emergency  public  procurement  in  the  field  of 
cohesion policy, but that it would use it on case-by-case basis whenever the timeframe would 
require this. 

16 

 
 
Under the Slovak Law on public procurement, the contracting authority can apply the direct 
negotiation procedure (without publication) only when the need for goods, services or works 
was caused by an emergency situation which could not be foreseen and was not caused by the 
contracting authority.  In addition,  the goods, services or works must be  necessary to  satisfy 
the  need  and  the  standard  procedures  cannot  be  used.  If  the  direct  negotiation  procedure  is 
used  due  to  an  emergency,  the  contracting  authority  is  obliged  to  notify  the  Public 
Procurement  Office  before  concluding  the  contract,  stating  the  reasons  for  the  use  of  this 
procedure.  However,  this  is  not  necessary  if  the  contracting  authority  has  published  the 
notification  of  its  intention  to  conclude  a  contract.  Based  on  the  replies  from  the  Slovak 
AFCOS  partners  acting  as  managing  authorities/intermediate  bodies,  it  seems  that  so  far 
emergency procurement has not often been used in projects co-financed from their operational 
programmes. 

Finland replied that the reporting of projects exceeding the thresholds was guided by the IT 
system for Structural Funds projects.  In 2020, the managing authority organised training for 
intermediate bodies on the procedures for projects below the thresholds. 

The Swedish National Agency for Public Procurement launched a guidance paper presenting 
its views on procurement and changes to contractual terms that the procurement rules would 
allow during the COVID-19 pandemic. 

1.1.3.  Transition to e-procurement processes 

Member States were asked to provide information on whether they had already completed the 
transition  to  e-procurement  processes.  Some  18  Member  States17  replied  that  they  had  fully 
implemented the recommendation, while 618 reported partial implementation. Austria has not 
implemented the recommendation, and Ireland and Cyprus did not reply to this question. 

Several Member States provided details for their replies (summarised below)19. 

The  Belgian  body  managing  the  ERDF  in  Flanders  reported  that  since  1 January 2020, 
the  awarding  authority  and 
communication  and  exchange  of 
undertakings,  including  electronic  submission  and  receipt  of  tenders,  must  be  carried  out 
using electronic means of communication at all stages of the award procedure. The Flemish 
Government  was  an  early  adaptor  of  e-procurement,  working  since  2013  with  (mandatory) 
digital e-procurement for public procurement procedures involving publication. 

information  between 

The  Bulgarian  centralised  automated  information  system  for  public  procurement  has  been 
operating  since  1  January  2020.  Since  that  date,  the  following  three  groups  of  contracting 
entities are required to use the system: executive authorities, mayors of certain municipalities 
and  representatives  of  certain  sectoral  contracting  entities.  Given  the  exceptional  epidemic 
situation  in  the  country,  the  obligation  to  use  the  new  system  came  into  effect  for  all  other 
contracting entities from a later date, 14 June 2020. 

Estonia reported that 98% of its public procurements were e-procurements. 

17  Belgium,  Bulgaria,  Czechia,  Denmark,  Germany,  Estonia,  Greece,  Croatia,  Italy,  Latvia,  Luxembourg, 

Hungary, Malta, Portugal, Romania, Slovenia, Finland and Sweden. 

18  Spain, France, Lithuania, the Netherlands, Poland and Slovakia. 

19  For more detailed information see Section 2 ‘Member States’ Replies’. 

17 

 
 
                                                 
Greece reported that the transition to e-procurement procedures for awarding public contracts 
with  an estimated value  of more than  EUR 60 000.00 plus  VAT was  complete and covered 
the  stages  from  publication  of  the  notice,  to  the  submission,  opening  and  evaluation  of 
tenders, and to the award of the contract. 

Spain explained that implementation was only partial. This was because while some relevant 
authorities  had  reported  having  fully  implemented  the  recommendation,  others  had  reported 
that  some  parts  of  their  procurement  processes  were  not  electronic  yet.  The  authorities  are 
actively working to fully complete the transition to e-procurement and acknowledge that the 
COVID-19 crisis has accelerated this process. This was also highlighted by the Independent 
Office  for  the  Regulation  and  the  Supervision  of  Public  Contracts  in  its most  recent  annual 
supervisory report. 

France reported that it had not yet moved to open data for public procurement. Nevertheless, 
verifying the basic and regulatory requirements for making public procurement fully digital is 
part of the managing authorities’ monitoring of public procurement. 

Lithuania explained that all published procurements should be carried out through the central 
procurement  information  system.  So  far,  some  of  the  unpublished  low-value  purchases  are 
non-electronic. 

The  Netherlands  reported  that  not  every  fund  was  completely  digital  yet,  but  efforts  were 
being made to ensure digital processes were utilised to the fullest. 

Austria  explained  that  there  was  no  public  procurement  in  the  Ministry  of  Agriculture, 
Regions and Tourism. All relevant actions take place in the Federal Procurement Office. 

On 1 January 2021, the new Polish Law on public procurement entered into force. The Law 
introduces a number of amendments and new legal arrangements that affect the whole public 
procurement process, from the planning of the procedure itself, conducting the procedure and 
awarding the public contract, to the final stage of implementing and evaluating the contract). 
Under the new Law, the procurement process will be fully electronic.  

Slovenia  replied  that  procedures  above  the  threshold  for  publication  on  the  national  public 
procurement platform, JN Portal, and the revision procedure were completely electronic.  

In Slovakia, e-procurement is partly implemented. The current state of play is the following: 
the  communication  and  exchange  of  information  must  be  carried  out  electronically.  Public 
the  EVO  (e-public 
procurement  can  be  currently  conducted  electronically 
procurement) system managed by the Public Procurement Office, through the EKS (electronic 
contracting  system)  system  managed  by  the  Ministry  of  Interior,  as  well  as  through  the 
various  private  e-auction  systems.  The  EKS  system  is  integrated  with  the  Register  of 
Economic  Operators,  while  the  EVO  system  is  integrated  with  the  central  public 
administration  portal,  offering  additional  features  and  connection  to  other  national  systems 
and public registers. 

through 

Finland  stated  that  the  procedure  for  projects  exceeding  the  EU  thresholds  was  completely 
electronic. 

18 

 
 
1.1.4.  Measures  to  further  strengthen  transparency  in  the  use  of  EU  funds,  in 

particular in relation to emergency procurement 

Member  States  were  asked  to  report  whether  they  had  taken  any  further  measures  to 
strengthen  transparency  in  the  use  of  EU  funds,  in  particular  in  relation  to  emergency 
procurement. A total of 17 Member States20 replied that they had done so, while 8 Member 
States21 had not. Denmark stated that the question was not of relevance to it, and Cyprus did 
not reply. 

Several Member States provided details for their replies (summarised below)22.  

In  Belgium,  the  Flemish  Government’s  Department  of  Agriculture  and  Fisheries  explained 
that it had not taken any further measures because they had transparent procedures in place, 
especially due to the mandatory use of e-procurement. In the case of emergency procurement 
specifically,  Flemish  legislation  states  that  for  emergency  procurements  that  reach  the 
European  threshold  it  is  mandatory  to  publish  an  announcement  of  the  awarded  contract 
within 30 days of closure, including the results of the award procedure. During the COVID-19 
crisis, internal communication from the Flemish Government drew attention to this rule and 
other tips via a webpage. 

Bulgaria  replied  that  the  national  electronic  platform  currently  ensured  a  sufficiently  high 
level  of  publicity  and  transparency  of  the  procurement  process  in  the  country.  The  Public 
Procurement Register, which is part of the platform, contains an electronic file for any public 
contract  above  a  certain  value.  The  system  currently  allows  the  user  to  consult  all  public 
contracts and contracts financed under European programmes. 

Czechia explained that it had not taken any further measures because a structural reform of 
the Law on public procurement was not necessary to strengthen transparency in the use of EU 
funds. Transparency is already ensured, e.g. by a well-functioning system of electronic tools 
(where  the  controlling  entities  may  be  granted  access  rights  and  the  role  of  surveillance). 
Some managing authorities have been the subject of standard auditing procedures, which even 
recently did not call for further strengthening of existing transparency  procedures. The main 
focus  of  managing  authorities  during  the  pandemic  was  on  maintaining  and  sustaining 
operational functionality without compromising any of the required functions. 

The  Estonian  Implementing  Agency  for  AGRI  and  FISH  Funds  has  started  to  test 
ARACHNE  and  will  implement  it  in  its  daily  procedures.  The  Estonian  authorities 
responsible  for  the  ESI  and  HOME  Funds  reported  that  all  emergency  procurements  are 
checked before payment.   

The Irish Southern Regional Assembly (SRA) and Northern and Western Regional Assembly 
(NWRA)  (MA  SEROP/BMWROP)  reported  the  continued  use  of  detailed  Article  125 
management verifications and improvements to the checklists used.   

20  Bulgaria,  Germany,  Ireland,  Estonia,  Greece,  Spain,  Croatia,  Italy,  Latvia,  Lithuania,  Luxembourg, 

Hungary, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovenia and Sweden. 

21  Belgium, Czechia, France, Malta, the Netherlands, Austria, Slovakia and Finland. 

22  For more detailed information see Section 2 ‘Member States’ Replies’. 

19 

 
 
                                                 
Greece’s Single Public Procurement Authority (HSPPA) provided contracting authorities and 
entities with clarifications on compliance with publication formalities in the tender procedure 
if there is a change in the terms of the contract notice. In addition, the HSPPA has set up a 
platform for reporting fraud and corruption, and irregularities in general, in the field of public 
procurement, which meets the conditions for the implementation of Directive (EU) 2019/1937 
on the protection of whistleblowers.  

The Spanish Law on public procurement requires the award and formalisation of a contract to 
be  published  in  all  cases  in  the  centralised  electronic  procurement  portals.  This  includes 
emergency  contracts,  which  are  not  exempt  from  this  obligation.  An  information  note  was 
issued,  clearly  stating  that  the  exemption  from  certain  requirements  in  case  of  emergency 
procedures does not apply to obligations regarding publication of the award and formalisation 
of the contract. 

Croatia reported that during the COVID-19 crisis, the Ministry of Economy and Sustainable 
Development issued recommendations on determining and submitting the tender guarantee in 
the  new  situation.  These  recommendations  were  in  addition  to  the  guidance  from  the 
European  Commission  on  using  the  public  procurement  framework  in  the  COVID-19 
emergency. Recommendations on the public opening of tenders were also issued, proving that 
the public procurement system is adapting to the new circumstances. 

Italy  explained  that  the  state  of  emergency  did  not  affect  the  applicable  compliance 
requirements  in  the  use  of  EU  funds.  The  first-level  controls  continue  to  ensure  the 
transparency and regularity of the procurements procedures. 

The  Latvian  Procurement  Monitoring  Bureau  ensures  sample-based  ex  ante  checks  of 
procurement  procedures  in  EU-funded  projects.  The  Bureau’s  Administrative  Penalties 
Department  carries  out  sample-based  examinations  to  verify  the  justification  of  emergency 
procurements.  Furthermore,  guidelines  have  been  prepared  on  transparency  in  public 
procurement,  as  well  as  several  guidelines  on  emergency  procurements  emphasising  the 
importance  of  transparency  and  efficient  use  of  financial  resources.  The  Corruption 
Prevention  and  Combating  Bureau,  in  cooperation  with  the  State  Audit  Office  and 
Procurement  Monitoring  Bureau,  developed  and  published  anti-corruption  suggestions  for 
maintaining  principles  of  good  governance  and  the  application  of  the  lighter  procurement 
procedure for emergency procurements directed at fighting the spread of COVID-19. 

Lithuania reported that any person who suspected that EU funding had been spent wrongly 
could  inform  the  relevant  authorities  using  an  online  form.  This  message  may  be  sent 
anonymously,  if  needed.  In  addition,  lack  of  transparency  in  public  procurement  may  be 
reported to the Public Procurement Office. 

The Hungarian Public Procurement Authority’s activities to strengthen transparency include: 
(i) the keeping of various records, such as a list of prohibited tenderers and a code of ethics; 
(ii) the receipt and thorough investigation of public-interest reports and complaints; and (iii) 
publishing the authority’s key opinions in its journal, the Közbeszerzési Értesítő Plusz online 
public procurement bulletin. The Public Procurement Authority also ensures full transparency 
of public procurement procedures through its computerised publication systems. In addition, 
the Prime Minister’s Office took several measures to strengthen competition and transparency 
in connection with public procurement procedures. 

20 

 
 
Malta  explained  that  most  procurements  (works/services/supplies)  using  public  funds 
(including  EU funds) were conducted through standard procurement  procedures;  since open 
calls  for  tender  tend  to  be  the  default  procedure  in  Malta,  it  is  evident  that  the  process  is 
transparent.  With  specific  regard  to  emergency  spending,  the  Department  of  Contracts, 
irrespective of the COVID-19 crisis, has in place a method to assess the validity of any such 
requests. 

The Netherlands reported that it had maintained the same level of transparency in the use of 
the EAFRD, EAGF, AMIF and ISF Funds, but had had no emergency procurement in these 
specific Funds. 

Austria explained that it had not taken any additional measures because a voluminous set of 
checks and controls was in place in the agriculture sector (control costs are up to 50% of the 
subsidy  paid  for  some  sectors,  putting  the  cost-benefit  ratio  into  question).  Checks  and 
controls are also in place in the cohesion policy (ERDF) sector. 

The  procurement  procedures  in  force  under  Polish  public  procurement  law,  including  the 
case-by-case  approach,  are  fully  in  line  with  Directive  2014/24/EU.  In  the  absence  of  any 
specific  arrangements  at  EU  level  for  emergency  COVID-19-related  procurement,  Polish 
legislation does not impose additional requirements on contracting authorities over and above 
the procedures  and methods set  out  in the  Law and in  Directive 2014/24/EU (thus avoiding 
‘gold-plating’).  Contracting  authorities  are  required  to  apply  the  arrangements  laid  down  in 
public procurement law by taking a case-by-case approach. The paying agency’s rules on the 
EU  Agricultural  Funds  also  ensure  transparency  in  the  use  of  these  funds.  All  the  costs 
incurred  by  beneficiaries  are  verified  for  compliance  with  public  procurement  rules.  The 
agency is continuously taking steps to make the use of funds more transparent, including by 
putting into practice the guidance and recommendations of both the national and the EU audit 
and control services, and by self-monitoring. The above actions relate to the whole range of 
EU financial support, including public procurement. 

Portugal replied that the existence of a specific legal framework made it possible to identify 
which procedures were covered, thus making the procurement process more transparent and 
ensuring compliance with the specific rules applicable. 

Romania reported that the National Office for Centralised Procurement (ONAC) had drawn 
up a contracting strategy for most of the procurement procedures for the goods on the list of 
medical emergency stocks products of strict necessity. The office had also taken measures to 
strengthen  transparency  by  publishing  a  prior  notice  on  the  national  electronic  public 
procurement  platform  (SEAP)  and  on  the  office’s  website.  In  general,  the  national  public 
procurement legislation ensures an adequate level of transparency. The ex post verification of 
the managing authority is in accordance with the legal provisions of the public procurement. 

The Slovenian Government Office for Development and European Cohesion Policy reported 
that it always requested two offers in general. The office also indicated that it had not carried 
out emergency procurement in the field of cohesion policy.  

Under  the  amended  Slovak  Law  on  public  procurement,  the  contracting  authority  must 
comply  with 
transparency, 
the  principles  of  equal 
proportionality, effectiveness and economy. 

treatment,  non-discrimination, 

21 

 
 
Finland  explained  that  it  had  not  taken  any  additional  measures  because  the  Law  on 
procurement,  which  entered  into  force  in  2017,  is  considered  to  adequately  ensure  the 
principle of transparency. 

The  Swedish  National  Agency  for  Public  Procurement  offers  guidance  on  anti-corruption 
measures at a strategic level and measures at different phases of the procurement process. It 
defines corruption as the abuse of one’s position to achieve undue advantage for one’s own or 
someone else’s gain; this includes conflicts of interest. 

1.2.  Reporting of irregularities 

The  Commission  provided  the  following  question  to  the  Member  States  on  how  they  were 
addressing the recommendation on irregularities reporting: 

Q.5  Have  you  ensured  that  the  reporting  of  irregularities,  in  particular  non-fraudulent,  for 
the 2014-2020 programming period is closely monitored? 

This section summarises the results, based on the Member States’ replies. 

Table 2: Implementation of Commission’s recommendation on irregularity reporting by MS 

22 

 
 
For the 2014-2020 programming period, the Commission recommended close monitoring of 
the reporting of irregularities, in particular of non-fraudulent irregularities.  

A total of 22 Member States23 reported full implementation of this recommendation, while 424 
replied that they partly implemented it. Cyprus did not reply to the question.  

The Member States’ replies are summarised below25. 

The  Belgian  body  managing  the  ERDF  in  Flanders  reported  that  at  each  annual  closure  of 
accounts,  the  managing,  certifying  and  audit  authorities  carried  out  an  additional  check 
consisting in the comparison of their data so that any irregularity could be duly reported. Staff 
at the Flemish Government’s Integrity Office and members of the public can raise concerns 
about  integrity  and  wrongdoing  by  contacting  Audit  Flanders,  the  Integrity  Office  or  the 

23  Belgium, Bulgaria,  Czechia,  Denmark, Germany, Estonia,  Spain, France, Croatia, Italy,  Latvia,  Lithuania, 

Luxembourg, Hungary, Malta, Austria, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Sweden and Finland. 

24 

Ireland, Greece, the Netherlands and Slovenia. 

25  For more detailed information see Section 2 ‘Member States’ Replies’. 

23 

Q5BEBGCZDKDEEEIEELESFRHRITCYLVLTLUHUMTNLATPLPTROSISKFISEfully implementedpartly implementednot implementednot applicableno answer 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
Ombudsman. The Flemish Government’s Department of Agriculture and Fisheries reports all 
irregularities above a threshold of EUR 10 000 via the IMS system. 

The Bulgarian managing authorities replied that their reporting of irregularities was subject 
to  strict  controls.  They  have  set  up  systems  to  enter  and  check  the  information  recorded  on 
any  irregularity  detected  during  the  implementation  of  their  projects.  Irregularity  officers 
report  irregularities  in  strict  compliance  with  the  conditions,  procedures,  deadlines  and 
templates  provided  for  in  the  Regulation  on  the  administration  of  irregularities  under  the 
European  Structural  and  Investment  Funds.  The  managing  authorities  report  irregularities 
through IMS, working closely with the AFCOS Directorate; no difficulties or problems have 
been  identified.  Any  irregularity  detected  under  the  programme  is  duly  reported  in  both  the 
UMIS 2020 and IMS systems in the cases provided for. 

Czechia  replied  that  irregularities  for  the  2014–2020  programming  period  were  reported  in 
accordance with the Methodological guide for the financial flows of programmes co-financed 
by  the  European  Structural  Funds,  the  Cohesion  Fund  and  the  European  Maritime  and 
Fisheries Fund for the programming period 2014–2020. The procedures are included in the 
managing authorities’ internal documents. Recorded irregularities are regularly monitored in 
accordance with the methodologies of the Ministry of Finance and the  Ministry of Regional 
Development.  At the same time, cooperation is  under way with  the financial administration 
bodies,  which  are  responsible  for  supervising  compliance  with  the  Law  on  budgetary  rules, 
including the recovery of funds from grant beneficiaries. 

The Danish Fisheries Agency stated that every quarter, the agency’s control team coordinates 
with  its  economics  department  over the detection of irregularities.  If there are irregularities, 
these  are  reported  through  IMS.  These  are  then  checked  by  the  Danish  agricultural  agency. 
Corrections  are  send  back  to  the  Danish  Fisheries  Agency  to  ensure  that  the  reporting  is 
useful. The Danish business authority stated that it had a procedure for reporting irregularities 
in IMS that was in line with the Commission’s regulation and the OLAF handbook. 

The  Estonian  authorities  responsible  for  the  ESI,  AGRI,  FISH  and  HOME  Funds  reported 
that  all  implementing  bodies  must  carry  out  a  risk  assessment  procedure  and  report  all 
detected or prevented irregularities via the e-based system. 

Germany  reported  that  it  had  had  advanced  management/control  systems  for  years.  This 
includes  a  major  focus  on  fraud  prevention  and  the  reporting  of  irregularities.  The  systems 
also ensure proper reporting of non-fraudulent irregularities. The Federal Ministry of Finance, 
as the coordinating body, regularly organises workshops in this area. 

The  Irish  Southern  Regional  Assembly  (SRA)  and  the  Northern  and  Western  Regional 
Assembly (NWRA) (MA SEROP/BMWROP) reported the continued use of the IMS system, 
but stated that further training was required for the staff of managing authorities. 

Greece  reported  that  the  managing  authorities  of  operational  programmes  and  the  audit 
authority  followed  a  specific  procedure  (‘Reporting 
the  European 
Commission’). However, the audit authority reported that the recommendation was partially 
implemented  because  not  all  managing  authorities  and  intermediate  bodies  had  been 
registered in the IMS for the direct electronic transmission of irregularities. The registration of 
these authorities and bodies is ongoing, with access due to be granted shortly. They will then 
be able to report any potential irregularities they have detected. 

irregularities 

to 

24 

 
 
All the relevant Spanish authorities reported that the reporting of non-fraudulent irregularities 
had  been  monitored  similarly  to  in  previous  years,  in  particular  to  the  2007–2013 
programming  period.  This  suggests  that  falls  in  the  number  of  non-fraudulent  irregularities 
reported in the 2014–2020 programming period compared with 2007–2013 (not the case in all 
the  reporting  authorities)  could  be  for  other  reasons,  as  highlighted  in  the  2019  PIF  report. 
There  is  no  evidence  that  this  decrease  is  due  to  a  worse  performance  in  non-fraudulent 
irregularity reporting. 

France reported that for the period 2017–2019, the audit authority (CICC) entered all reports 
of non-fraudulent irregularities (and suspected fraud) in the IMS application. Since 2020, the 
managing authorities are responsible for reporting. These authorities request reports through 
the ‘SYNERGIE’  IT system. The audit authority checks, validates or rejects the reports and 
sends them to the Commission via the SYNERGIE application. To ensure that non-fraudulent 
EAGF  and  EAFRD  agricultural  irregularities  for  the  2014–2020  programming  period  are 
regularly  reported, CICC EAGF sends regular reminders to  the paying agencies  responsible 
for submitting irregularities to the irregularity management system (IMS). 

Under common national rules issued by the Croatian Ministry of Regional Development and 
EU Funds intermediate bodies are obliged to file quarterly irregularity reports, using the IMS, 
to  the  Ministry  of  Finance’s  Service  for  Combating  Irregularities  and  Fraud.  The  reports 
contain  all  relevant  information  on  the  course,  type  and  scope  of  actions/activities  taken  by 
the  competent  authorities  in  the  relevant  quarter.  Intermediate  bodies  keep  a  register  of 
irregularities  listing  all  established  and  pending  irregularities  from  the  beginning  of  the 
eligibility  period.  These  procedures  make  the  necessary  data  available  and  enable  decision-
makers to take one step further in assessing whether and how goals are being achieved over 
time to prevent, detect, report and act upon irregularities. 

In  Italy,  the  Agency  for  Territorial  Cohesion  monitors  the  use  of  Funds  and  supervises  the 
implementation of programmes and projects co-financed by the EU. 

The  Latvian  Ministry  of  Agriculture  and  Rural  Support  Service  (responsible  for  EMFF, 
EAFRD  and  EAGF)  reported  that  the  recommendation  had  been  fully  implemented.  The 
irregularities  in  the  Funds  administered  by  the  RSS  are  being  monitored  and  no  significant 
reduction  in  the  irregularities  has  been  identified.  The  RSS  regularly  reviews  and  improves 
the process of reporting the irregularities, including the revision of COVID-19-related fraud 
risks.  The  Central  Finance  and  Contracting  Agency  (responsible  for  ESF,  ERDF  and 
Cohesion Fund) reported that a detailed irregularity detection, correction and reporting system 
was in place and was complied with closely. The Latvian managing authority has established 
guidelines  to  ensure  the  management  of  irregularities.  Every  quarter,  the  authority  exports 
open  irregularity  cases  from  IMS  and  checks  whether  is  it  necessary  to  update  information 
and forward it to the EU Fund Cooperation Institution (the Central Financing and Contracting 
Agency). 

Lithuania  reported  that  the  following  monitoring  measures  had  been  put  in  place:  risk 
analysis, on-the-spot-checks, cooperation with law enforcement authorities, and monitoring of 
risky projects. The information on irregularities and related data is constantly monitored in the 
2014–2020  European  Union  Structural  Funds  management  and  monitoring  system 
(SFMIS2014),  which  is  the  main  source  of  information  for  reporting  irregularities  to  the 
Commission. The preparation and submission of irregularity reports is described in detail in 
the manual of procedures. So far, however, monitoring has been done manually, reviewing all 
relevant information. 

25 

 
 
In Hungary, AFCOS is responsible for providing the staff of the relevant national authorities 
with  appropriate  training  on  IMS.  AFCOS  also  provides  day-to-day  assistance  to  ensure 
problem-free use of the system. AFCOS operates a working group on irregularity reporting to 
meet the reporting obligation laid down in the EU sectoral regulations uniformly and in full, 
and  to  make  the  content  of  irregularity  reports  more  useful  in  preventing  domestic 
fraud/irregularities. This group is composed mainly of experts from the managing authorities 
dealing with irregularity management and representatives of the certifying authority. 

The Maltese Planning and Priorities Coordination Division, as the managing authority of the 
Cohesion  Funds,  has a system in  place in  which administrative verifications cover 100% of 
the expenditure items included in applications for payment. Where the number of transactions 
included  are  voluminous,  the  managing  authority  undertakes  a  sample  check  of  the 
transactions  included  in  a  payment  claim,  based  on  a  pre-established  and  internally  agreed 
methodology.  On  irregularity  detection  and  reporting,  when  a  public-sector  beneficiary 
detects  an  irregularity,  a  report  is  sent  to  the  director  (Policy  Development  and  Programme 
Implementation)  of  the  relevant  line  ministry.  The  director  counter-signs  the  report  and 
forwards  it  immediately  to  the  managing  authority,  copying  in  the  audit  authority  and  the 
certifying authority. 

The  Netherlands  reported  that  the  existing  procedures  for  EAFRD  and  EAGF  had  been 
functioning for years and that these procedures have been maintained at the same level. The 
authorities’ input concerning non-fiscal data has increased in recent years. The authorities are 
still  improving  their  input  on  such  non-fiscal  data.    Due  to  the  amount  of  findings  and  the 
different  national  and  EU  IT  systems,  not  all  the  findings  are  reported  yet.  The  Dutch 
authorities have also found that interoperability can be very helpful to improve the input given 
by a Member State. The outcome of the new procedures is obvious, with more data are being 
shared but not yet all. 

On agriculture and rural development, Austria reported the provision of area-based LPIS-GIS 
support  for  farmers  and  on-the-spot  checks  (OTSC)  inspectors  and  IT  support,  including 
standardised  invoice  lists,  documented  standard  processes  and  OTSC  reports.  Risky  market 
schemes  are  slowly  decreasing  in  value  and  number  of  beneficiaries.  On  cohesion  policy 
(ERDF),  Austria  reported  an  improved  set  of  checks  and  controls,  including  an  additional 
separate sheet on the risk of fraud for project reviews and a mandatory fraud risk assessment 
for  each  programme  unit  since  2014–2020.  In  addition,  the  audit  authority’s  checklist  on 
public procurement law has been expanded this year, with significantly more questions added 
to the checklist. 

Poland  reported  that  it  duly  complied  with  its  obligations  to  report  to  the  European 
Commission  any  irregularities  found  in  respect  of  EU  funds  and  to  monitor  them  on  a 
continuous  basis.  The  authorities  for  each  operational  programme  draw  up  appropriate 
procedures  concerning  the  obligation  to  notify  the  Commission,  including  implementing 
instructions, taking into account the provisions set out in the national procedure drawn up on 
the basis of the relevant sectoral regulations and issued by the Government Commissioner for 
Combating  Fraud  against  Poland  or  the  EU.  Therefore,  the  system  in  Poland  for  reporting 
irregularities  and  fraud  (including  cases  of  suspected  fraud)  is  uniform  and  robust.  The 
monitoring of cases of reportable irregularities includes control and analytical tasks to ensure 
that the data in the irregularity reports are consistent, complete and reliable. 

Portugal  reported  that  the  procedures  put  in  place  involved  the  managing  authorities, 
certifying  authorities  and  audit  authorities,  thereby  ensuring  that  different  aspects  of  the 

26 

 
 
spending process are covered. Moreover, in its annual audits, the audit authority checks that 
all the irregular amounts detected are indeed reported. 

Romania reported that documentary checks of the managing authorities, audit missions and 
the  anti-fraud  department  (DLAF)  checks  had  led  to  the  discovery  of  the  irregularities 
reported  in  the  IMS.  All  cases  of  irregularities  are  monitored  for  each  managing  authority, 
especially those that require reporting to the Commission under the sectoral regulations. The 
tool for monitoring these cases is the Register of irregularities/debts, so there is no possibility 
to overlook the reporting of such a case. Although managing authorities have intensified their 
checks, the number of identified irregularities has decreased since the previous programming 
period. This was due to the experience gained by the beneficiaries in project implementation, 
as well as the constant assistance provided by managing authorities in project implementation. 

Slovenia  reported  that  the  reduction  in  fraud  was  mainly  due  to  a  better  co-financing 
agreement,  which  was  mandatory  for  all  intermediary  bodies.  In  the  period  2021–2027, 
Slovenia will try to include additional provisions on whistleblowers and similar institutes. 

The  Slovak  Ministry  of  Finance,  acting  as  the  certifying  authority,  stated  that  the 
recommendation  had  been  fully  implemented.  As  there  are  no  new  procedures  regulating 
reporting of irregularities, no significant changes took place compared to 2019. However, the 
recommendation  is  fully  implemented  thanks  to  procedures  already  in  place  from  the 
beginning  of  the  2014–2020  programming  period.  Cooperation  between  the  managing 
authority,  certifying  authority  and  the  National  Office  for  OLAF  in  Slovakia  is  realised 
through  an  information  monitoring  system  (ITMS2014+)  in  which  all  irregularities  are 
recorded  in  detail.  In  addition,  the  monthly/quarterly  reports  are  compiled  in  this  system, 
meaning that each new irregularity, whether fraudulent or non-fraudulent, and any update on 
already  reported  irregularities,  is  automatically  included  in  the  report  if  it  meets  all  the 
conditions. All irregularities in the 2014–2020 programming period are monitored using an IT 
system, so reporting was not affected by the pandemic. 

Finland reported that in two training sessions held  in  2020, the certifying authority  and the 
managing authority reminded the intermediate bodies about the need to keep information on 
irregularities updated in  the monitoring system and to monitor the status of the treatment of 
the findings. 

The Swedish Council for the Protection of the European Union’s Financial Interests (the SEFI 
Council) has studied the authorities’ reports of suspected crime in order to check how well the 
Council’s  reporting  policy  is  implemented.  Another  aim  was  to  follow  up  on  whether  the 
SEFI Council’s guidelines for handling suspected crime need to be revised. 

27 

 
 
 
 
2. 

MEMBER STATES’ REPLIES 

This  section  includes  the  Member  States'  original  replies  to  the  questions  regarding  the 
implementation  of  the  recommendations  related  to  emergency  spending  and  reporting  of 
irregularities respectively.  

1.3.  Austria 

Q.1.  Have  you  ensured  that  verification  and  monitoring  measures  are  kept  at  a  high 
level? 

☒NO 

If you did not implement the recommendation, could you please explain why? 

In the sector of agriculture, no specific EU related emergency procurement is in place. 

Q.2  Have  you  ensured  that  emergency  procurement  is  used  on  the  basis  of  a  case-by-
case assessment? 

☒NO 

If you did not implement the recommendation, could you please explain why? 

No emergency procurement in place. 

Q.3 Have you already completed the transition to e-procurement processes?  

☒NO 

If partially or not, could you briefly explain at which point you are in the process? 

No  public  procurement  in  the  ministry  of  Agriculture,  Regions  and  Tourism.  All  relevant 
actions take place in the federal procurement office. 

Q.4 Have you taken any measures to further strengthen transparency in the use of EU 
funds, in particular in relation to emergency procurement?  

☒NO 

If not, could you explain why and how your current system already ensures an adequate 
level of transparency? 

In the sector of agriculture, a voluminous set of checks and controls is in place (control costs 
are up to 50% of subsidy paid for some sectors, putting in question the cost-benefit ratio). 

Also in the sector of cohesion policy (ERDF) there is a set of checks and control. The checks 
of the Audit Authority were enhanced in 2020, not especially for emergency procurement, but 
in general. 

Q.5 Have you ensured that the reporting of irregularities, in particular non-fraudulent, 
for the 2014-2020 programming period is closely monitored? 

28 

 
 
☒YES, fully implementing the recommendation 

If you implemented fully the recommendation, could you indicate which procedures you 
have put in place? Which was the outcome of these new procedures? 

In the sector of Agriculture:  

Area based LPIS-GIS support for farmers and OTSC inspectors as well. 

  Rural  development  measures  now  with  IT  support,  including  standardised  invoice 

lists, documented standard processes and OTSC reports. 

  Risky market schemes are slowly decreasing in value and number of beneficiaries. 

Sector ERDF: 

In the sector of cohesion policy (ERDF) there is an improved set of checks and controls: 

  A separate sheet on the risk of fraud for project reviews was added. 
  Each programme unit had to carry out a Fraud Risk Assessment since 2014-2020 and 
update it every 2 years. This is checked by the audit authority in the course of system 
audits. 

The Audit authority checklists on public procurement law have been expanded this year, i.e. 
significantly more questions in the checklist. 

1.4.  Belgium 

Q.1.  Have  you  ensured  that  verification  and  monitoring  measures  are  kept  at  a  high 
level? 

fully 

☒YES, 
(ERDF  Flanders), 
recommendation 
DEPARTEMENT  LANDBOUW  EN  VISSERIJ  VLAAMSE  OVERHEID  (Department  of 
Agriculture and Fisheries, Flemish Government)) 

implementing 

(EFRO  VL 

the 

If  you  implemented  fully  the  recommendation,  could  you  indicate  how  this  was 
achieved?  Can  you  share  any  specific  finding  in  relation  to  such  measures?  Have 
detections increased, decreased or remained stable overall? 

EFRO VL: The usual verification measures still apply, with no exceptions. 

DEPARTEMENT  LANDBOUW  EN  VISSERIJ  VLAAMSE  OVERHEID:  All  deviations  from 
the normal functioning of our verification and control systems are kept track of in an Excel 
table. We only lowered control rates for measures that had a record of low error rates. For 
other  measures  we  applied  either  alternative  checks  or  small  adaptation  of  the  on-the-spot 
check where possible, or delayed the on-the-spot check until the situation improved. Overall 
we kept the same level of assurance during the COVID19-crisis. 

29 

 
 
Q.2  Have  you  ensured  that  emergency  procurement  is  used  on  the  basis  of  a  case-by-
case assessment? 

☒YES, fully implementing the recommendation (EFRO VL, DEPARTEMENT LANDBOUW 
EN VISSERIJ VLAAMSE OVERHEID) 

If you implemented fully the recommendation, could you indicate which procedures you 
have put in place to achieve that?  

EFRO  VL:  The  usual  verification  measures  apply,  in  particular  every  public  procurement 
contract  is  checked  for  correct  implementation  (100% monitoring).  Use  of  the  emergency 
procedure is an exception that is always subject to thorough checks. 

DEPARTEMENT  LANDBOUW  EN  VISSERIJ  VLAAMSE  OVERHEID  Emergency 
procurement procedures are seldom used and if used, they are always used on the basis of a 
case-by-case assessment. 

Q.3 Have you already completed the transition to e-procurement processes?  

☒YES, fully implementing the recommendation (EFRO VL, DEPARTEMENT LANDBOUW 
EN VISSERIJ VLAAMSE OVERHEID) 

EFRO VL: Since 1 January 2020, communication and exchange of  information between the 
awarding authority and undertakings, including electronic submission and receipt of tenders, 
must  be  carried  out  using  electronic  means  of  communication  at  all  stages  of  the  award 
procedure.  

DEPARTEMENT  LANDBOUW  EN  VISSERIJ  VLAAMSE  OVERHEID:  The  Flemish 
government was an early adaptor of e-procurement, working with an (mandatory) digital e-
procurement for public procurement procedures involving publication since 2013. 

Q.4 Have you taken any measures to further strengthen transparency in the use of EU 
funds, in particular in relation to emergency procurement?  

☒NO (EFRO VL, DEPARTEMENT LANDBOUW EN VISSERIJ VLAAMSE OVERHEID) 

If not, could you explain why and how your current system already ensures an adequate 
level of transparency?  

EFRO VL: see Q2. 

DEPARTEMENT LANDBOUW EN VISSERIJ VLAAMSE OVERHEID: We have transparent 
procedures  in  place,  especially  due  to  the  mandatory  use  of  e-procurement.  In  the  case  of 
emergency  procurement  specifically,  Flemish  legislation  states  that  it  is  mandatory  for 
emergency procurements that reach the European threshold  to  publish an announcement  of 
the awarded contract with inclusion of the results of the awarding procedure within 30 days 
after  closure.  During  the  COVID19-crisis,  internal  communication  from  the  Flemish 
government drew attention to this rule and other tips via a webpage (link). 

Q.5 Have you ensured that the reporting of irregularities, in particular non-fraudulent, 
for the 2014-2020 programming period is closely monitored? 

30 

 
 
☒YES,  fully 
INTEGRITEIT, DEPARTEMENT LANDBOUW EN VISSERIJ VLAAMSE OVERHEID) 

the  recommendation  (EFRO  VL,  VLAAMSEOVERHEID 

implementing 

If you implemented fully the recommendation, could you indicate which procedures you 
have put in place? Which was the outcome of these new procedures? 

EFRO  VL:  At  each  annual  closure  an  additional  check  is  carried  out  during  which  the 
managing, certifying and audit authorities compare their data so that any irregularity is duly 
reported. 

VLAAMSEOVERHEID INTEGRITEIT (Flemish Government, Integrity Office): At the Flemish 
government, both internal employees and citizens can raise concerns regarding integrity and 
wrong-doing by contacting Audit Flanders, the Integrity Office and the Ombudsman. 

When  the  raised  concerns  point  towards  fraudulent  irregularities,  Audit  Flanders  will  look 
into it and start an in-depth investigation if necessary. Audit Flanders conducts investigations 
at the Flemish govern but also at the Flemish cities and municipalities. 

When  the  raised  concerns  deal  with  non-fraudulent  irregularities,  the  Integrity  Officer  will 
address  these  issues  and  will  register  the  concerns  in  a  secured  application  and  will  also 
register the actions taken, and the expert services that were involved to tackle the issues. The 
Integrity  Officer  makes  a  yearly  report  on  the  number  of  raised  concerns  received  and  the 
policy  measures 
is  published  online: 
https://overheid.vlaanderen.be/bedrijfsinformatie/co%C3%B6rdinator-integriteitszorg  

that  have  been 

taken.  This 

report 

Since 2019 all entities of the Flemish government have also extended this duty to register and 
report to their integrity contact person. Each entity has at least one integrity contact person. 
This way the Flemish government aims to gather more detailed information on the number of 
concerns raised and the actions and measures taken to address these issues. 

DEPARTEMENT  LANDBOUW  EN  VISSERIJ  VLAAMSE  OVERHEID  All  irregularities 
above a threshold of 10.000,00 euro are reported via the IMS system. 

1.5.  Bulgaria 

Q.1.  Have  you  ensured  that  verification  and  monitoring  measures  are  kept  at  a  high 
level? 

☒YES, fully implementing the recommendation 

If  you  implemented  fully  the  recommendation,  could  you  indicate  how  this  was 
achieved?  Can  you  share  any  specific  finding  in  relation  to  such  measures?  Have 
detections increased, decreased or remained stable overall? 

Managing Authority of Operational Programme ‘Good Governance’ 2014-2020: 

the MA generally applies the following  measures for  the timely and  correct  implementation 
and  reporting  of  the  projects  and  the  programme  (Operational  Programme  ‘Good 
Governance’): 

31 

 
 
  Monitors the implementation of project activities on an on-going basis. Provides case-
specific  advice  to  beneficiaries,  including  on  technical  issues  related  to  project 
reporting.  Meets  regularly  with  beneficiaries  to  discuss  specific  problems  of  the 
projects  and  how  to  resolve  them,  including  as  a  mediator  to  coordinate  the 
implementation  of  projects  involving  different  institutions.  Follows  up  public 
procurement  cases  concerning  key  projects  in  the  Commission  for  Protection  of 
Competition and the Supreme Administrative Court on an on-going basis; 

  Carries out analyses at project and programme level on a monthly basis in order to 

address problems encountered in a timely manner;  

  Requires  that beneficiaries submit payment claims on  time in order to  ensure  timely 
verification  and  certification  and  mitigate  the  risk  of  automatic  decommitment  of 
programme funds;  

  The  necessary  organisation  has  been  established  by  setting  specific  deadlines  for 
beneficiaries’ submission of the accounts to the UMIS, after which the MA carries out 
verification within a short period of time; 

  Regularly  provides  guidance/information  on 

in 
implementation,  public  procurement;  changes  in  the  legal  framework  and  others  to 
prevent  errors  and  irregularities.  Maintains  and  updates  the  information  on  the 
website of Operational Programme ‘Good Governance’; 

the  most  common  errors 

  Proactively  coordinates  to  clarify  horizontal  issues  related  to  the  implementation  of 

measures from roadmaps to e-government strategy papers; 

  Works in close cooperation with administrations/administrative units in policy areas, 
the  implementation  of  which  is  funded  and  implemented  under  the  programme  (the 
State  e-Government  Agency,  the  Modernisation  of  Administration  Directorate  in  the 
Administration of the Council of Ministers, the Supreme Judicial Council, etc.); 

  With regard to verification, in the event of infringements, in particular incorrect and 
incomplete  payment  claims  in  respect  of  the  specific  expenditure  and  the  form 
required,  the  expenditure is not verified, as the  beneficiary  has not submitted before 
the  deadline  all  the  necessary  documents  requested  by  the  MA  in  the  verification 
process  in  accordance  with Article 63(1) of the  European Structural and  Investment 
Funds Act (ZUSESIF). Under Article 64(1) ZUSESIF, if a beneficiary fails to submit a 
document  or  clarification  within  the  time  limit,  the  expenditure  concerned  is  not 
verified and may be included in a subsequent payment request; 

  The  MA  carries  out  an  administrative  check  of  each  payment  claim  for  each 
beneficiary.  Staff  handling  the  relevant  payment  claim  also  check  for  any 
whistleblowing  reports  received  concerning  fraudulent  behaviour  under  Annex  2 
Recommended  mitigating  controls  to  the  Guidelines  for  Member  States  and 
Programme  Authorities  responsible  for  fraud  risk  assessment  and  effective  and 
proportionate anti-fraud measures;  

  The  epidemic crisis that started in March 2020 made it difficult to  carry  out  certain 
activities, most often related to events. In this context, numerous enquiries have been 
submitted to the Operational Programme  ‘Good  Governance’ in order  to  clarify the 
transition  from  an  in-person  to  an  online  format,  the  spending  of  funds  in  the  new 

32 

 
 
circumstances,  the  type  of  reporting  documents  to  be  submitted.  The  MA  publishes 
guidelines  in  its  section  on  the  single  information  portal,  which  contain  a  general 
recommendation  to  do  one’s  best  to  implement  projects  in  a  timely  and  accurate 
manner, and, for public events to be carried out remotely, if possible and if it will not 
adversely  affect their effectiveness, following  the corresponding amendment of grant 
contracts  where  necessary.  The  two  instructions  of  the  MA  are  available  at  the 
following 
https://www.eufunds.bg/bg/opgg/node/4229; 
https://www.eufunds.bg/bg/opgg/node/4742 

links: 

Managing Authority of Human Resources Development Operational Programme 2014-2020: 

In  response  to  the  challenges  of  ensuring  full  verification  of  expenditure  under  the  Human 
Resources Development Operational Programme 2014-2020 (OP HRD) in the context of the 
COVID-19  pandemic,  the  MA  developed  an  additional  means  of  verification  of  programme 
activities  through  a  system  of  telephone  interviews  and  other  audio-visual  communication 
with staff of beneficiaries and persons from the target groups of individual projects for which 
expenditure  has  been  claimed.  The  official  who  carried  out  the  inspection  records  the 
information  from  these  interviews  in  checklists  which,  under  case-law  of  the  Supreme 
Administrative Court, are official documents within the meaning of Article 179(1) of the Code 
of  Civil  Procedure  due  to  the  fact  that  they  were  issued  by  officials  in  the  exercise  of  their 
duties. This method was introduced as an alternative to in-person interviews normally carried 
out during on-the-spot checks, due to social distancing requirements. By using this technique, 
it is ensured that relevant information is obtained in the verification process. On the basis of 
information obtained from such interviews since March 2020, it was established that a total 
of  3  contracts  have  not  been  implemented.  A  financial  correction  was  set  for  one  of  the 
contracts, verification of affected expenditure was refused for another and the third contract 
was terminated and the beneficiary was informed that it should recover any amounts unduly 
received. A referral has been made to the competent authorities.  

Managing  Authority of  Operational  Programme ‘Science and  Education for  Smart Growth’ 
2014-2020: 

Every  year,  the  Audit  Authority  of  the  Audit  of  European  Union  Funds  Executive  Agency 
(AEUFEA) carries out an assurance audit on the effective functioning of the management and 
control  systems  of  the  Managing  Authority  of  the  Operational  Programme  ‘Science  and 
Education for Smart Growth’ carried out by the Audit Authority (AA). In the final report of 13 
July 2020, the AA categorised the assessment of the management and control systems under 
Key Requirement 4 ‘Appropriate management verifications’ as Grade 2 ‘Functioning. Some 
improvement needed.’ In the report, the AA states that adequate measures have been taken by 
the  MA  of  Operational  Programme  ‘Science  and  Education  for  Smart  Growth’  to  ensure 
adequate  administrative  capacity  to  implement  the  procedures  for  the  verification  of  public 
procurement expenditure. 

Managing  Authority  Implementation  of  Operational  Programme  ‘Transport  and  Transport 
Infrastructure’ 2014-2020: 

For  Operational  Programme  Transport  and  Transport  Infrastructure  2014-2020,  a 
functioning management and control system has been set up for the part of the management 
verifications and monitoring of the funded projects, which includes: 

33 

 
 
 
  administrative verifications in respect of each application for reimbursement by 

beneficiaries, which include: 

o  check on the legality of the procedures carried out by the beneficiary for the 

selection of the contractor; 

o  verification of eligibility of costs claimed by beneficiaries; 
o  verification of the activities carried out and the implementation of the 

indicators under the project; 
o  check of fraud indicators; and 
o  check of whistleblowing ; 

  On-the-spot checks on project implementation to verify physical and financial 

progress 

  Periodic audits of the system by the AEUFEA, and in particular the key requirement 
concerning the verification of expenditure under the programme, provide reasonable 
assurance as to its high level. 

Managing Authority of Operational Programme ‘Regions in Growth’ 2014-2020: 

The  Managing  Authority  of  the  Operational  Programme  ‘Regions  in  Growth’  2014-2020 
updated the Manual for the management and implementation of the operational programme 
and the Management and control systems of the operational programme in line with the needs 
arising from the coronavirus outbreak, and introduced structural and organisational changes. 
The  administrative  capacity  in  the  monitoring  and  verification  units  was  improved  by 
transferring  experts  from  other  departments,  thus  improving  the  implementation  of  the 
relevant  activities  within  the  Managing  Authority.  The  conclusion  is  that  the  MA  of  OPRG 
2014-2020 maintains a high level and quality of monitoring and verification. 

The  management  and  control  systems  of  the  Managing  Authority  do  not  report  negative 
impacts and trends, despite the pandemic conditions and the containment measures taken by 
the government, in particular the challenge for some staff of the MA to carry out their duties 
remotely. The Managing Authority has put in place all the conditions for providing for staff 
without  taking  the  risk  of  compromising  the  quality  of  work  and  of  deteriorating  the 
organisation  of  monitoring  and  verification  of  resources  from  the  European  Structural  and 
Investment Funds. 

Managing Authority of Operational Programme ‘Environment’ 2014-2020: 

The  monitoring  and  verification  process  for  OPE  2014-2020  has  been  maintained  at  the 
highest level, taking into account all findings and recommendations of both the national audit 
bodies and the EC and the European Court of Auditors. As the expenditure foreseen under the 
programme is in no way linked to addressing the consequences of the COVID-19 pandemic, 
no exceptional procurements and expenditure under the operational programme are planned. 
This  was  achieved  by  transferring  to  the  programme  of  resources  saved  under  Operational 
Programme ‘Innovation and Competitiveness’ which has more experience in managing funds 
linked to private legal entities. Thus, the responsibility for controlling exceptional expenditure 
was clearly defined and this allowed for a more thorough control of this type of expenditure.  

With regard to increasing transparency in the use of European funds, it  should be borne in 
mind that full e-procurement was introduced in 2020 ensuring equal access to information on 

34 

 
 
 
ongoing  tenders  and  significantly  reducing  the  scope  for  manipulation  of  tendering 
procedures. 

Executive Agency ‘Certification Audit of European Agriculture Funds’ 

In  relation  to  the  increased  risk  of  fraud,  the  staff  of  the  Agency  ‘Certification  Audit  of 
European  Agricultural  Funds’  participated  in  a  series  of  meetings  with  the  Commission’s 
audit  authorities  on  the  need  to  extend  checks  during  audit  engagements  and  to  enhance 
awareness of the increased risk of double financing and direct award of public contracts. 

As part of the checks to be carried out at the Agency, unjustified direct award is an indicator 
of fraud.  

National Fund Directorate within the Ministry of Finance 

The expenditure certification process is carried out by the National Fund Directorate within 
the Ministry of Finance (Certifying Authority) in accordance with the principle of separation 
of  functions  and  responsibilities  between  the  actors  involved,  while  avoiding  duplication  of 
controls.  

Documentary  checks  prior  to  the  preparation  and  submission  of  payment  claims  to  the 
Commission are based on the accounting and control procedures established by the CB and 
include:  

  verification of Certification Report and Declaration of Eligible Expenditure; 
  review of the  reports  (preliminary  and final) of control and  audit authorities for the 
OP concerned and information on the implementation of the recommendations made 
therein; 

  review of registered whistleblowing and irregularities under the OP; 
  other checks related to the verified expenditure (CA verifications, on-the-spot checks 
of the MA, review of information on the progress of implementation and the results of 
the management checks carried out, etc.); 

  maintaining  databases  for  the  purpose  of  certification  of  expenditure,  financial 

management and implementation of OPs; 

  keeping an audit trail. 

Checks on accounting records are carried out on a sample basis to confirm the eligibility of 
expenditure included in the Certification Report and Declaration of Eligible Expenditure and 
on public procurement procedures to confirm the legality of the expenditure included in the 
Certification  Report  and  the  Declaration  of  Eligible  Expenditure  and  the  results  of  these 
checks  are  taken  into  account  in  the  certification  of  expenditure  with  the  annual  closure  of 
accounts. 

The certification of expenditure to the European Commission through the annual accounts for 
the closure of an accounting year for each programme includes the following activities:  

  review of payment applications prepared and submitted to the European Commission 

during the accounting year; 

35 

 
 
  review  of  the  results  of  the  CB’s  verifications  of  compliance  with  the  managing 
authority’s  procedures  and  control  activities  and  their  impact  on  the  amount  of 
eligible expenditure for the accounting year concerned; 

  other  checks  related  to  expenditure  submitted  to  the  Commission  for  reimbursement 

(audits, irregularities, whistleblowing, financial corrections, debts, etc.)  

  preparation and submission to the Commission of annual accounts for the closure of 

the accounting year; 

  maintaining  databases  for  the  purpose  of  certification  of  expenditure,  financial 

management and implementation of OPs; 

  ensuring an adequate audit trail; 

In  relation  to  the  activities  listed  above,  the  organisational  structure  of  the  CA  sets  the 
following levels of responsibilities related to the certification process: 

a)  Expert  level  —  control  and  certification  experts  and  other  experts  (accountants, 

lawyers, liquidity management experts); 

b)   Management level — Heads of Unit; 
c)  Certification level — Head of the CA. 

In  order  to  improve  the  certification  process  in  2020,  changes  were  made  to  the  checklists 
used  for  the  verification  of  public  procurement  and  for  the  preparation  of  the  annual 
accounts.  The  changes  made  are  based  on  both  experience  and  regulatory  developments  in 
the field concerned. 

The  certification  of  expenditure  did  not  show  any  increase  in  the  identified  deviations  and 
shortcomings  in  either  the  work  of  the  Managing  Authorities  or  the  implementation  of  the 
projects. 

Q.2  Have  you  ensured  that  emergency  procurement  is  used  on  the  basis  of  a  case-by-
case assessment? 

☒YES, fully implementing the recommendation 

If you implemented fully the recommendation, could you indicate which procedures you 
have put in place to achieve that?  

Public Procurement Agency 

The  Public  Procurement  Act  (ZOP)  provides  for  various  options  that  allow  for  a  quick 
procurement,  including  in  cases  of  extreme  urgency.  These  possibilities are  in  line  with  the 
relevant European directives in the field. In cases where there is an urgent need to select  a 
contractor,  the  contracting  authority  has  the  possibility  to  shorten  the  time  limits  for 
submission  of  applications  and/or  bids  for  competitive  procedures  (Article  74(4),  Article 
75(7), Article 76(6) and Article 133(4) of the Public Procurement Act, etc.). In this case (i.e. 
in the case of a fast-track procedure), the contracting authority should indicate in the contract 
notice the circumstances requiring the urgent procurement. 

36 

 
 
 
Where  it  is  not  possible  to  carry  out  a  fast-track  procedure,  the  contracting  authority  may 
meet  its need by  carrying out  one of  the negotiated procedures referred  to  in  Article 18(1), 
subparagraphs (8), (9) and (13) of the Public Procurement Act, i.e. negotiation without prior 
publication  pursuant  to  Article  79(1)(4)  of  the  Public  Procurement  Act  if  it  is  a  public 
contracting  authority,  or  a  negotiated  procedure  without  prior  invitation  to  participate  in 
accordance with Article 138(1) of the Public Procurement Act if it is a sectoral contracting 
authority (or direct negotiation under Article 182(1)(1) of the Public Procurement Act for a 
contract with an estimated value below the European thresholds). The application of one of 
the  abovementioned  legal  bases  is  permissible  where  an  urgent  award  of  the  contract  is 
necessary due to exceptional circumstances and it is not possible to comply with time limits, 
including  shortened  deadlines,  for  an  open,  restricted  or  competitive  procedure  with 
negotiation.  Moreover,  the  circumstances  justifying  the  existence  of  urgency  should  not  be 
attributable to the contracting authority. 

According  to  the  legal  definition  of  §  2(17)  of  the  Additional  Provisions  of  the  Public 
Procurement  Act,  ‘exceptional  circumstances’  are  circumstances  caused  by  events 
unforeseeable  by  the  contracting  authority,  such  as  a  natural  disaster,  an  accident  or  a 
calamity, etc. that damage, directly endanger or may result in a subsequent occurrence of a 
danger  to  the  life  or  health  of  persons,  to  the  environment,  to  public  order,  to  national 
security  or  to  the  defence  of  the  country  or  are  likely  to  significantly  impede  or  impair  the 
normal performance of the contracting authority’s statutory activities.  

The  Public  Procurement  Act  provides  that  the  contracting  authority  must  justify  the 
exceptional  circumstances  when  conducting  a  procedure  under  Article  79(1)(4),  Article 
138(1)  or  Article  182(1)(1)  of  the  Public  Procurement  Act.  In  this  vein,  the  award  of 
emergency contracts in the country is subject to legal grounds and a case-by-case assessment 
by the individual contracting authority.  

The Public Procurement Agency (PPA) carries out an external review of legality in the award 
of  public  contracts  in  the  event  of  extreme  urgency  and  in  the  conduct  of  negotiated 
procedures in exceptional circumstances. Controls by the PPA are carried out in accordance 
with the conditions laid down in the Public Procurement Act.  

It should be noted that ex ante control of the PPA constitutes effective methodological support 
for the contracting authorities, which, under the Public Procurement Act, are responsible for 
the legality of  their procedures. At the end of  all PPA checks an opinion is  issued in  which 
findings  are  accompanied  by  recommendations  and  instructions  to  address  identified 
inaccuracies and regulatory non-compliances. 

Managing Authority of Operational Programme ‘Good Governance’ 2014-2020: 

The  MA  of  the  Operational  Programme  ‘Good  Governance’  carries  out  a  strict  ex-post 
control  of  procurement,  including  the  grounds  and  procedures  for  emergency  procurement 
and  direct  contracting.  Where  necessary,  the  MA  of  Operational  Programme  ‘Good 
Governance’ assists beneficiaries in checking the legality of the procurement conditions laid 
down  so  as  to  avoid  cases  of  unlawful  emergency  procurement  and,  where  such  cases  are 
discovered  at  the  ex-post  control  stage,  the  MA  establishes  an  appropriate  financial 
correction to protect the financial interests of the European Union. 

Article 13 of the Act on State of Emergency Measures, announced by Decision of the National 
Assembly  of  13  March  2020,  and  Measures  Addressing  the  Effects  (title  amended  SG  No 

37 

 
 
44/2020, in force as of 14 May 2020, published SG No 28 of 24 March 2020, in force as of 13 
March  2020,  last  amended  SG  No  109  of  22  December  2020,  in  force  since  22  December 
2020), permits a derogation from (suspends the  application of) the Public Procurement  Act  
in  its  entirety  for  the  duration  of  the  state  of  emergency  and  the  epidemic  emergency  and 
three months after it is lifted in the following cases: 

1.  contracting  authorities  purchasing  hygienic  materials,  disinfectants,  medical  devices 
and  personal  protective  equipment  necessary  to  ensure  containment  measures  and 
transport services in such cases; 

2.  purchase of medical devices, provision of testing and reporting services, purchase of 
medical  and  laboratory  equipment  necessary  for  the  diagnosis  and  treatment  of 
infected  patients,  their  supplies,  as  well  as  their  implementation  and  warranty 
maintenance and transport services in such cases; 

3.  contracting activities for the disposal of pesticides and hospital waste in accordance 
with Regulation No 1 on the requirements for the collection and treatment of waste in 
the hospitals and health care facilities. 

As  the  beneficiaries  of  the  OP  are  public  and  non-governmental  bodies,  institutions  and 
organisations and the priority axes of the OP do not imply expenditure in these sectors, the 
MA of OP does not control the legality of such expenditure, as such expenditure is not carried 
out under OP projects. 

Managing Authority of Human Resources Development Operational Programme 2014-2020: 

In the process of verifying each payment claim, part of the checks carried out include checks 
on  all  expenditure  relating  to  the  assignment  of  supplies,  services  and  works  to  persons 
outside the beneficiary. All concluded contracts are checked irrespective of their value and of 
whether they were awarded using the procedures provided for by law or directly. The check is 
carried  out  by  completing  appropriate  checklists  and  assessing  the  compliance  of  each 
contract  with  the  applicable  procurement  rules.  Where  a  contract  has  been  concluded 
applying an exception to the scope of the Public Procurement Act (and in particular Article 
13(1)(21)  of  the  Public  Procurement  Act  and  Article  13  of  the  Act  on  State  of  Emergency 
Measures, announced by Decision of the National Assembly of 13 March 2020, and Measures 
Addressing the Effects), it is verified whether the factual circumstances established at the time 
of the conclusion of the specific contract justify the application of the relevant exception.  

Managing  Authority of  Operational  Programme ‘Science and  Education for  Smart Growth’ 
2014-2020: 

The  MA  of  OP  does  not  recommend  that  beneficiaries  carry  out  negotiated  procedures 
without prior publication. Where the conduct of such procedures is necessary for reasons of 
urgency,  the  Public  Procurement  Agency,  in  the  context  of  the  checks  it  carries  out  under 
Article 233 of the Public Procurement Act gives an opinion on the choice of this procedure 
and  the  validity  of  the  reasons.  When  carrying  out  ex-post  controls,  the  MA  of  the  OP 
analyses  the opinion of  the PPA, the procurement  documents  (including  any changes to  the 
outcome of the opinion of the PPA) and decides whether the conditions for urgent award have 
been met for the specific procedure.  

38 

 
 
 
Two negotiated procedures were carried out under the OP without prior publication due to 
the  specificity  of  the  project  BG05M2OP001-2.012-0001  ‘Education  for  tomorrow’  and  in 
view of the pandemic situation following the opinion of the PPA on the legality of the choice 
of procedure: 

1.  Public  procurement  procedure  for  the  ‘Provision  of  equipment  with  the  necessary 
internet  access  to  set  up  a  suitable  organisation  in  the  school  education  system  for 
teaching  remotely  using  information  and  communication  technologies’.  The  contract 
is under Article 18(1)(8) of the Public Procurement Act and its estimated value falls 
within the scope of Article 20(1)(1)(b) of the Public Procurement Act.  

In its choice of procedure, the contracting authority referred to Article 79(1)(4) of the 
Public Procurement Act i.e. where an urgent award of the contract is necessary due to 
exceptional circumstances and it is not possible to comply with time limits, including 
shortened  deadlines, 
for  an  open,  restricted  or  competitive  procedure  with 
negotiation.  The  circumstances  justifying  the  existence  of  urgency  should  not  be 
attributable to the contracting authority. 

Given the declared state of emergency and the need for a transition from teaching at 
schools to distance learning, it was necessary to deliver to schools, urgently, within 3 
days,  laptops  equipped  with  internet  access  devices,  with  prepaid  internet  access 
included for a period of 3 months, allowing distance learning to take place. The need 
to perform the delivery as soon as possible (3 days) rendered it impossible to comply 
with the time limits, even shortened time limits, for an open, restricted or competitive 
procedure with negotiation. 

The  PPA  has  also  confirmed  the  existence  of  all  the  conditions  for  applying  the 
procedure under Article  79(1)(4)  of  the Public  Procurement  Act in an opinion of 23 
March 2020 on controls carried out under Article 233 of the Public Procurement Act. 

2.  Public procurement procedure for the ‘Provision of equipment necessary to set up a 
suitable  organisation  in  the  school  education  system  for  teaching  remotely  using 
information and communication technologies’. The contract is under Article 18(1)(8) 
of the Public Procurement Act and its estimated value falls within the scope of Article 
20(1)(1)(b) of the Public Procurement Act.  

In its choice of procedure, the contracting authority referred to Article 79(1)(4) of the 
Public Procurement Act i.e. where an urgent award of the contract is necessary due to 
exceptional circumstances and it is not possible to comply with time limits, including 
shortened  deadlines, 
for  an  open,  restricted  or  competitive  procedure  with 
negotiation.  The  circumstances  justifying  the  existence  of  urgency  should  not  be 
attributable to the contracting authority. 

Given the declared state of emergency and the need for a transition from teaching at 
schools to distance learning, it was necessary to deliver to schools urgently, within 3 
days,  laptops  with  minimum  technical  specifications  allowing  distance  learning  to 
take place. The need to perform the delivery as soon as possible (3 days) rendered it 
impossible  to  comply  with  the  time  limits,  even  shortened  time  limits,  for  an  open, 
restricted or competitive procedure with negotiation. 

39 

 
 
The  PPA  has  also  confirmed  the  existence  of  all  the  conditions  for  applying  the 
procedure under Article  79(1)(4)  of  the Public  Procurement  Act in an opinion of 23 
March 2020 on controls carried out under Article 233 of the Public Procurement Act. 

Managing  Authority  Implementation  of  Operational  Programme  ‘Transport  and  Transport 
Infrastructure’ 2014-2020 

Emergency  procurement  is  regulated  at  legislative  level  by  Article  79(1)(4)  of  the  Public 
Procurement  Act,  which  reads  as  follows:  ‘where  an  urgent  award  of  the  contract  is 
necessary due to exceptional circumstances and it is not possible to comply with time limits, 
including  shortened  deadlines,  for  an  open,  restricted  or  competitive  procedure  with 
negotiation. The circumstances justifying the existence of urgency should not be attributable 
to  the  contracting  authority.’  Under  Article  233  of  the  Public  Procurement  Act,  the  Public 
Procurement Agency controls such procurement. 

Managing Authority of Operational Programme ‘Regions in Growth’ 2014-2020: 

In accordance with the Manual for the management and implementation of the Operational 
Programme  ‘Regions  in  Growth’  2014-2020  and  the  Management  and  Control  Systems,  all 
tendering procedures carried out undergo a legality check prior to the verification of funds, 
with  particular  attention  being  paid  to  procedures  carried  out  in  the  context  of  the  fight 
against the spread of the coronavirus infection, COVID-19. The nature of a limited number of 
eligible  specific  beneficiaries  regulated  under  OPRG  2014-2020  creates  stability  in  the 
implementation of the programme, thus achieving full implementation of the recommendation. 

Audit of EU Funds Executive Agency 

In  its  audit  work  in  2020,  the  AEUFEA  followed  the  Commission’s  guidance  set  out  in  the 
Communication  from  the  Commission:  Guidance  from  the  European  Commission  on  using 
the public procurement framework in the emergency situation related to the COVID-19 crisis. 
In this respect, three aspects are subject to enhanced control: 

  reasons for shortening time limits in open and restricted procedures,  

  are  the  conditions  met  for  using  a  negotiated  procedure  without  publication  of  a 

contract notice on grounds of exceptional urgency?  

  changes to contracts resulting from COVID crisis events. 

As  contracting  authority,  the  Audit  Authority  did  not  carry  out  urgent  procurement 
procedures. 

Executive Agency ‘Certification Audit of European Agriculture Funds’ 

Within  the  existing  Executive  Agency  ‘Certification  Audit  of  European  Agricultural  Funds’ 
(IA SOSEZF) procedures, each award is subject to a separate detailed check irrespective of 
the procurement procedure used. 

From an audit point of view, fraud indicators are: 

1.  bargaining in the bid 

40 

 
 
2.  unfounded award to one contractor 

Where fraud indicators are established, immediate action is taken to prevent the payment of 
irregular expenditure and the competent authorities are informed of any follow-up action. 

Q.3 Have you already completed the transition to e-procurement processes?  

☒YES, fully implementing the recommendation 

Public Procurement Agency 

The  Centralised  Automated  Information  System  for  Public  Procurement  has  been  operating 
since 1 January 2020 and, from that date, the following three groups of contracting entities 
are  required  to  use  it:  the  executive  authorities,  mayors  of  certain  municipalities  and 
representatives  of  certain  sectoral  contracting  entities.  All  other  contracting  entities  have 
been required to use the system from a later date, 14 June 2020 in relation to the exceptional 
epidemic situation in the country. 

The  national  electronic  platform  contains  information  on  the  whole  procurement  process, 
including  e-tendering,  electronic  communication  between  contracting  entities  and  economic 
operators, electronic submission of applications, tenders and e-invoices. It includes business 
processes  for  the  award  of  contracts  with  values  both  above  and  below  the  European 
thresholds for all national procedures, including award through the solicitation of tenders or 
restricted invitations. 

In addition, the platform offers users a range of other possibilities and functionalities. It is an 
electronic sender, contains an ESPD module and buyer profiles of all Bulgarian contracting 
entities. The following modules are to be introduced: e-shop, electronic complaint, electronic 
requests  for  the  performance  of  contracts,  modules  assisting  bodies  in  ex-ante  and  ex-post 
control of the application of the law. 

Managing Authority of Operational Programme ‘Good Governance’ 2014-2020: 

The  Managing  Authority  of  the  OP,  on  the  one  hand,  follows  the  procurement  procedure 
through the electronic system as the contracting authority and, on the other hand, monitors 
the lawful award of public contracts by the beneficiaries of the OP in the framework of the ex-
post control of legality. 

Managing  Authority  Implementation  of  Operational  Programme  ‘Transport  and  Transport 
Infrastructure’ 2014-2020 

Due to the introduction of electronic public procurement in Bulgaria, since 1 January 2020 
both  tenders  and  their  evaluation  by  contracting  entities,  including  projects  funded  by  OP, 
are carried out entirely electronically. 

Managing Authority of Operational Programme ‘Regions in Growth’ 2014-2020: 

In  the  centralised  electronic  system  maintained  by  the  Public  Procurement  Agency,  tenders 
are  stored  in  encrypted  form  until  the  deadline  for  their  opening  and  presentation  of  a 

41 

 
 
 
decryption key by the economic operator, minimising the risk of fraud and manipulation. The 
system stores data on the main actions of all actors involved in the process. 

Managing Authority of Operational Programme ‘Environment’ 2014-2020: 

The version of SG No 86/2018 in force since 1 November 2019 of the Public Procurement Act 
introduced a step-by-step award of electronic public contracts using a centralised electronic 
platform. 

Q.4 Have you taken any measures to further strengthen transparency in the use of EU 
funds, in particular in relation to emergency procurement?  

☒YES 

If yes, could you specify which ones and how they strengthen the existing transparency 
framework? 

Public Procurement Agency 

The  national  electronic  platform  currently  ensures  a  sufficiently  high  level  of  publicity  and 
transparency  of  the  procurement  process  in  the  country.  The  Public  Procurement  Register 
which is part of the platform contains an electronic file of any public contract above a certain 
value  (including  contracts  awarded  through  negotiated  procedures  under  Article  18(1), 
subparagraphs  8,  9  and  13  of  the  Public  Procurement  Act).  The  file  contains  all  relevant 
documents relating to the procurement (decisions, notices, documentation, committees reports 
and  minutes,  information  on  appeals,  etc.),  contracts,  framework  agreements  and  annexes 
thereto, and subcontracts. 

The amendments adopted at the end of 2020 (Article 26(1)(3) of the Public Procurement Act) 
have extended the cases in which contracting authorities are required to send information for 
publication in the register. They are also obliged to send information on contracts awarded in 
accordance with the rules laid down in an international agreement between Bulgaria and a 
third  country  in  civil  procurement  and  in  contracts  in  the  fields  of  defence  and  security 
(Article  13(1),  subparagraph  1  and  13(b)  of  the  Public  Procurement  Act).  The  amendment 
also  concerns  certain  specific  exceptions  applied  by  sectoral  contracting  entities,  including 
the contracts of an affiliated undertaking and of a joint venture (Article 15(1)(1), (2), (5) and 
(6)  of  the  Public  Procurement  Act).  The  obligation  is  introduced  in  connection  with  the 
implementation of the commitment under the directives to send information on these contracts 
to the Commission. 

The  system  currently  allows  the  user  to  consult  all  public  contracts  and  contracts  financed 
under European programmes. 

Managing Authority of Operational Programme ‘Good Governance’ 2014-2020: 

Given  the  type  of  beneficiaries  and  projects  under  the  OP,  as  indicated  in  the  answer  to 
question  Q.2  above,  the  derogations  of  the  Public  Procurement  Act  under  Article  13  of  the 
State of Emergency Act are not applicable to the costs of projects under the programme. For 
the  same  reason,  the  emergency  procurement  financed  under  the  programme  by  shortening 
deadlines  is  not  practicable  and  therefore  no  additional  transparency  measures  are  needed 
beyond  the  general  rules  on  ex-post  control  of  the  legality  of  the  selection  of  external 

42 

 
 
contractors  by  the  beneficiaries  of  projects  under  the  OP,  including  through  direct 
contracting. 

Managing  Authority of  Operational  Programme ‘Science and  Education for  Smart Growth’ 
2014-2020: 

At  introductory  training  sessions  and  periodic  meetings  with  beneficiaries,  the  Managing 
Authority recommends that, as a rule, beneficiaries use the most competitive procedures — an 
open  procedure  and  a  public  competition  for  contracting  authorities  under  the  Public 
Procurement Act or a public call for beneficiaries which are not contracting authorities under 
the Act. In meetings and answers to questions related to the declared state of emergency, the 
beneficiaries  are  instructed,  when  they  intend  to  use  negotiated  procedures,  including  in 
cases  of  urgency,  to  discuss  in  advance  with  the  MA  the  applicability  of  the  relevant 
procurement  procedure  in  the  specific  public  procurement.  In  addition,  under  the  Public 
Procurement Act, the MA requires that all procurement procedures, including in the context 
of urgency, be published on the beneficiary’s buyer profile. All checklists for ex-post control 
of procedures carried out under the Public Procurement Act provide for checks on whether 
the conditions for emergency procurement are fulfilled in cases where such a procurement is 
permitted by law. 

The measures are carried out in accordance with the requirements of the Public Procurement 
Act for procedures under Article 79(1)(4). The conditions and procedures for carrying out of 
such a procedure are laid down in the Rules for the Implementation of this Act. 

Managing Authority of Operational Programme ‘Regions in Growth’ 2014-2020: 

In  accordance  with  national  and  European  legislation,  the  Managing  Authority  of  the 
Operational  Programme  ‘Regions  in  Growth’  2020-2014  has  put  in  place  whistleblowing 
arrangements. It also closely monitors information on possible irregularities in the press or 
other  sources.  In  cases  of  sufficient  information  it  may,  on  its  own  initiative,  carry  out  the 
relevant checks laid down in ZUSESIF. The MA of the OPRG 2014-2020 is transparent with 
regard to the control on the use of European Structural and Investment Funds and regularly 
publishes information on frequent infringements of the legislation leading to the detection of 
irregularities  and  the  imposition  of  financial  corrections.  Provides  training  to  beneficiaries 
and  submits  information  to  public  registers  (UMIS  2020).  In  view  of  the  above,  the  MA  of 
OPRG  2014-2020  has  reached  the  maximum  level  of  transparency  and  publicity  in  its 
operations and the conditions of tendering required to combat the spread of the coronavirus 
infection (COVID-19) do not  imply additional measures. The risk assessment  carried out  at 
institutional level did not identify any risk of compromising the transparency activities in the 
use of European Structural and Investment Funds. 

Managing Authority of Operational Programme ‘Environment’ 2014-2020: 

Measures to further enhance transparency in the use of European funds have been taken at 
national level by continuous upgrading of the single portal https://eumis2020.government.bg/ 
.  It  publishes  most  of  the  information  related  to  grant  procedures,  the  types  of  expenditure 
approved, the value of administrative contract concluded for the awarding of a grant, as well 
as direct links to the website of each programme. Also, within the framework of the national 
standards  in  place,  as  an  operational  programme,  OPE  2014-2020  publishes  on  a  regular 
basis all information of interest to the programme’s stakeholders, including on upcoming and 
past training, on most frequent errors identified in the process of monitoring and controlling 

43 

 
 
the  implementation  of  the  concluded  grant  contracts,  and  on  the  possibilities  for 
whistleblowing. 

Managing Authority of the Maritime Affairs and Fisheries Programme 2014-2020: 

All beneficiaries of the Maritime and Fisheries Programme 2020-2014 are required to carry 
out  procedures  for  the  selection  of  contractors  and  the  procedures  are  published  in  the 
electronic  system  UMIS  2020.  All  offers  from  potential  contractors  are  submitted 
electronically and an audit trail is kept. In addition, the implementation of projects financed 
under the programme does not provide for exceptions for the selection of a contractor without 
procurement, except in the case of an award of up to BGN 30 000. 

Executive Agency ‘Certification Audit of European Agriculture Funds’ 

To  date,  emergency  award  procedure  have  not  been  audited  by  Executive  Agency 
‘Certification Audit of European Agricultural Funds’. 

If not, could you explain why and how your current system already ensures an adequate level 
of transparency? 

Q.5 Have you ensured that the reporting of irregularities, in particular non-fraudulent, 
for the 2014-2020 programming period is closely monitored? 

☒YES, fully implementing the recommendation 

If you implemented fully the recommendation, could you indicate which procedures you 
have put in place? Which was the outcome of these new procedures? 

Managing Authority of Operational Programme ‘Good Governance’ 2014-2020: 

The reporting of irregularities to the MA of the OP for the 2020-2014 programming period is 
subject  to  strict  controls.  There  are  two  interchangeable  ‘irregularity  officers’  with  the 
corresponding job descriptions. The approved procedure for the administration and reporting 
of  whistleblowing  and  irregularities/suspected  fraud  under  the  programme  lays  down  the 
rules, the terms and the procedures for the administration of irregularities. It constitutes the 
Internal Rules for the Administration of Irregularities, drawn up on the basis of Article 13(2) 
of the Regulation on the administration of irregularities under the European Structural and 
Investment Funds, adopted by Decree No 173 of the Council of Ministers of 13 July 2016. The 
administration  of  whistleblowing  is  carried  out  in  accordance  with  the  legal  requirements, 
which is a condition for an effective organisation for the management and implementation of 
the registration of whistleblowing reports and the administration of irregularities. In order to 
refine  the  follow-up  of  irregularities,  the  Implementation  Manual  and  Management  and 
Control  Systems  for  the  Operational  Programme  ‘Good  Governance’  were  amended  on  22 
January 2020 and 22 December 2020. In the procedure for the administration and reporting 
of irregularities/suspicions of fraud under the OPGG, the responsibility for reporting on the 
progress  of  the  checks  on  whistleblowing  has  been  attributed  to  the  official  entrusted  with 
checking  reported irregularities and reporting  on progress concerning irregularity reports.. 
The Head of the Monitoring and Verification Unit carries out ongoing checks on the actions 
of  the  officials  carrying  out  the  checks  in  order  to  comply  with  the  statutory  deadlines  for 
establishing whether or not there is an irregularity in relation to reports received. 

44 

 
 
Managing Authority of Human Resources Development Operational Programme 2014-2020: 

A  system  has  been  set  up  at  the  MA  to  enter  and  control  the  information  recorded  on  any 
irregularity detected during the implementation of projects under the HRD OP. Compliance 
with the procedures for the administration of irregularities under national law is also subject 
to external control by the AFCOS Directorate of the Ministry of the Interior on the basis of 
Article  30(1)  of  the  Regulation  on  the  administration  of  irregularities  under  the  European 
Structural and Investment Funds and an audit by the AEUFEA and the Court of Auditors. The 
results of controls or audits are recommendations to correct detected errors or remedy other 
irregularities, with a set deadline for taking corrective action. 

Managing  Authority of  Operational  Programme ‘Science and  Education for  Smart Growth’ 
2014-2020: 

For the 2014-2020 programming period, the MA of the programme registered and reported a 
total of 253 irregularities, only 4 of which were ‘suspected fraud’. 

With  regard  to  irregularities  which  are  not  qualified  as  ‘suspected  fraud’,  the  MA  applies, 
with  the  same  care  and  responsibility,  the  measures  to  prevent,  detect  and  counter 
irregularities and recover funds unduly paid. This is supported by the conclusion of the third 
system audit of  the programme by the AEUFEA  where the assessment  of  key requirement  7 
‘Effective  implementation  of  proportionate  anti-fraud  measures’  classified  it  in  category  1 
‘Works  well.  No  or  only  minor  improvement(s)  needed.’  The  check  carried  out  by  the 
AEUFEA under key requirement 7 did not identify any deviations. 

All  irregularities  are  registered  in  the  Information  System  for  the  Management  and 
Monitoring of EU Funds in Bulgaria 2020 (UMIS 2020), to which both irregularity officials 
from the MA and the AFCOS Directorate of the Ministry of the Interior, the Audit Authority 
and the Certifying Authority have access. Irregularities are reported by irregularity officers 
in strict compliance with the conditions, procedures, deadlines and templates provided for in 
the  Regulation  on  the  administration  of  irregularities  under  the  European  Structural  and 
Investment  Funds.  In  addition,  internal  rules  and  audit  trails  have  been  set  up  and  are 
applied  in  the  MA  of  the  programme  (Chapter  12  ‘Irregularities’  of  the  Operational 
Programme Management Manual) ensuring the timely application of legal requirements for 
reporting irregularities, including those not qualified as ‘suspected fraud’. 

Managing  Authority  Implementation  of  Operational  Programme  ‘Transport  and  Transport 
Infrastructure’ 2014-2020 

Recognising the importance of the irregularity reporting process, a separate functional unit, 
Risk  Management,  Prevention  and  Management  of  Irregularities,  was  set  up  at  the  MA  in 
2015  and  one  of  its  functions  is  to  ensure  the  timely  and  accurate  reporting  of  detected 
irregularities. To this end, experts from this unit carry out an independent check of decisions 
on  financial  correction  to  establish  the  existence/absence  of  the  mandatory  elements  of  the 
irregularity  in  accordance  with  Article  14  of  the  Regulation  on  the  administration  of 
irregularities in the ESIF and, if necessary, report the irregularity found in accordance with 
the applicable rules. 

Periodic  audits  by  the  AEUF,  in  particular  of  the  key  requirement  concerning  risk 
management under the programme and the inspections of the AFCOS (Ministry of Interior), 
are an important element in the enhanced monitoring of this process. 

45 

 
 
Managing Authority of Operational Programme ‘Regions in Growth’ 2014-2020: 

The  managing  authority  of  Operational  Programme  ‘Regions  in  Growth’  2014-2020 
considers that it has implemented the recommendation. Reporting of irregularities is carried 
out  by experts on irregularities, with  a decrease in  the reported irregularities, as the 2014-
2020  programming  period  is  the  second  programming  period  that  took  place  after  the 
accession  of  the  Republic  of  Bulgaria  to  the  European  Union  and  both  the  administrative 
capacity  and  the  beneficiaries  have  gained  sufficient  knowledge  and  experience  in  the 
implementation of the European Structural and Investment Funds. The implementation of the 
2007-2013 and 2014-2020 programming periods allowed for the accumulation of experience 
both by the MA and experience gained as a result of audit reports of the Audit Authority and 
case-law  of  the  Supreme  Administrative  Court  on  infringements  constituting  irregularities 
within  the  meaning  of  the  Regulation.  The  MA  of  the  2020-2014  programme  considers  that 
the  reduced  number  of  non-fraudulent  irregularities  reported  is  based  on  the  accumulated 
practice  and  improved  administrative  capacity  of  beneficiaries  in  their  capacity  as 
contracting authorities. It is also owing to the MA’s clarification and information campaigns. 

The reporting of irregularities through IMS is carried out by the MA working closely with the 
AFCOS Directorate and no difficulties or problems have been identified. 

Managing Authority of Operational Programme ‘Environment’ 2014-2020: 

Any irregularity detected under the programme is duly reported both in UMIS 2020 and via 
the IMS system in  the cases provided for.  All  cases are followed up until the circumstances 
provided  for  in  the  Regulation  on  the  administration  of  irregularities  under  the  European 
Structural and Investment Funds have arisen and warrant their closure. 

Audit of EU Funds Executive Agency 

According to the Manual for the audit of EU funds for the programming period 2014-2020, 
the procedures for detecting irregularities and suspected fraud provide for the following: 

In the event of a deviation from the evaluation criteria in the relevant checklists, the auditor 
assesses  the  existence  of  an  irregularity.  The  conclusion  is  based  on  the  concept  of 
irregularity  in  the  applicable  regulations,  as  well  as  the  Regulation  on  the  indication  of 
irregularities constituting grounds for financial corrections and the percentage indicators for 
determining the amount of financial corrections under the ZUSESIF. 

The  auditor  identifies  the  financial  impact  of  each  infringement  found  and  documented  and 
determines  an  appropriate  financial  correction.  To  this  end,  the  nature  and  gravity  of  the 
offence/irregularity  and  the  financial  loss  to  the  EU  budget  are  taken  into  account  and  the 
financial  correction  should  be  proportionate  to  the  seriousness  of  the  irregularity  (Article 
143(2)  of  Regulation  (EU)  No  1303/2013  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council 
laying down common provisions on the ESIF). 

The  auditor  makes  this  assessment  to  confirm  the  work  of  the  Managing  Authority  and 
establish  whether  the  expenditure  to  be  recovered  claimed  by  the  European  Commission  is 
legal and eligible. 

Article  70  of  the  ZUSESIF  identifies  10  main  types  of  irregularities  affecting  expenditure 
financed  by  the  ESIF.  The  national  act  regulating  the  applicable  percentage  indicators  for 

46 

 
 
financial corrections is the Regulation on the indication of irregularities constituting grounds 
for  financial  corrections  and  the  percentage  indicators  for  determining  the  amount  of 
financial corrections under the ZUSESIF. 

In the field of public procurement, specific guidelines are available for determining financial 
corrections  to  be  made  to  expenditure  financed  by  the  EU  for  non-compliance  with  the 
procurement  rules  adopted  by  the  European  Commission  Decision  of  14  May  2019, 
respectively Annex 1 and Annex No 1a to Article 2(1) of the Regulation on the indication of 
irregularities constituting grounds for financial corrections and the percentage indicators for 
determining  the  amount  of  financial  corrections  pursuant  to  the  ZUSESIF  (Practical  Guide 
XV.2  to  this  Chapter.  Practical  Guide  VII.4.5.A.  to  Chapter  VII  Operations  Audit  of  the 
Regulation for financial corrections under ZUSESIF). 

Under Article 5 of the Regulation on the administration of irregularities under the European 
Structural and Investment Funds (adopted by Council of Ministers Decree No 173 of 13 July 
2016),  when  the  authorities  under  the  ZUSESIF,  including  the  Audit  Authority,  establish 
sufficient evidence of an irregularity in connection with the work carried out, they report this 
to the relevant head of the managing authorities of the operational programmes; the manager 
of  European  territorial  cooperation  programmes;  the  heads  of  intermediate  bodies.  In  this 
respect,  audit  reports  issued  by  the  Audit  Authority  as  a  result  of  audit  engagements  on 
operational  programmes co-financed by the ESIF constitute whistleblowing.  They are made 
available to the heads of the managing authorities in accordance with Chapters VI and VII of 
this Manual. 

Article  8(1)  of  the  Regulation  laying  down  the  procedures  for  the  administration  of 
irregularities under funds, instruments and programmes co-financed by the European Union 
(adopted  by  Council  of  Ministers  Decree  No  285  of  30  November  2009)  and  applicable  to 
programmes outside ESIF stipulates that final reports of the Audit of European Union Funds 
Executive Agency also constitute whistleblowing. 

Fraud indicators 

Guided  by  professional  vigilance  (scepticism),  auditors  are  particularly  attentive  to  the 
possibilities  of  fraud,  paying  substantial  attention  to  weaknesses  and  deficiencies  in  the 
management and control systems. In this respect, during system audits in the MA and CA, as 
well as during audits of operations, audit authorities check whether the mechanisms in place 
to prevent irregularities and fraud are adequate and effective.  

Annex  IV  of  the  Guidelines  on  fraud  risk  assessment  and  effective  and  proportionate  anti-
fraud  measures  (EGESIF_14-0021-0016/06/2014)  provides  practical  guidance  to  the  Audit 
Authorities to verify the activities undertaken by the Managing Authorities to mitigate fraud 
risks. The checklists included in Annex IV may be useful in carrying out system audits. They 
were taken into account when drawing up the checklist for verification of Key Requirement 7 
applied by the Audit Authority. 

The responsibilities of auditors in maintaining a system of effective anti-fraud measures and 
good practices from different countries are described in the Guide to the role of auditors in 
fraud  prevention  and  detection,  developed  by  the  European  Anti-Fraud  Office  (OLAF),  in 
cooperation with the EC and with the participation of experts from Member States (Practical 
Guide  XV.3).  The  guide  contains  specific  references  to  the  relevant  audit  standards  that 
regulate the role of auditors in the fraud prevention and detection process. 

47 

 
 
During  audit  engagements  auditors  are  particularly  vigilant  about  fraud  in  particular  with 
regard  to  grant  award,  contract  award  and  public  procurement  fraud  (when  discussing, 
designing and performing the audit the auditor must consider the procurement area as highly 
exposed  to  the  risks  of  fraud).  To  improve  auditors’  knowledge  of  and  skills  in  identifying 
irregularities and suspected fraud, auditors use the following practical documents developed 
by the Commission:  

  Guidelines for identifying conflicts of interest in public procurement procedures (see 

Practical Guide VII.3.4.C) and  

  Guidelines on detection of forged documents (see Practical Guide VII.3.4.D) as well 
as  an  Information  Note  on  Fraud  Indicators  for  ERDF,  ESF  and  Cohesion  Fund 
included in Practical Guide XV.3.1. to this Chapter. 

The  auditors  of  the  AEUFEA  carry  out  an  analysis  of  any  irregularity  they  have  identified 
during  the  audit  engagements  using  the  practical  guidelines  listed  above.  The  analysis  of 
irregularities  takes  into  account  the  specific  circumstances  and  environment  in  which  the 
beneficiary organisation operates. The analysis focuses on the following aspects: 

 

intentional  manipulation  of  financial  statements  (e.g.  inappropriately  reported 
revenues and/or expenses); 

  misappropriation  of  tangible  or  intangible  assets  (e.g.  in  deviations  relating  to 
unlawful  payments,  irregular  documents  relating  to  activities  carried  out  and  the 
physical implementation of projects); 

  conflict of interest and corruption (e.g. misappropriation and identified misconduct in 
public  procurement  detailed  in  the  checklist  used  to  check  the  selection  of  a 
contractor). 

Article  28  of  the  regulations  on  the  administration  of  irregularities  referred  to  above  lays 
down the obligation of the managing authorities to notify the competent authorities in cases of 
suspected  fraud.  Nevertheless,  the  Audit  Authority,  in  the  course  of  its  activities,  interprets 
independently the facts relating to the infringements found in order to establish whether there 
is suspected fraud. 

The head of the audit team presents for discussion any cases where the auditor has identified 
a  suspicion  of  fraud  in  the  context  of  the  audit  assignments  performed  during  the  year 
following  the  final  reports  on  the  results  of  a  project  verification  and  before  the  relevant 
annual control report is drafted. The head of the audit team, the director of the relevant audit 
directorate, the director of Legal Certainty in Audit Activities Directorate and the Executive 
Director  of  the  Agency  participate  in  the  discussion.  The  aim  is  to  assess  whether  there  is 
sufficient  relevant  and  reliable  evidence  of  the  documented  suspicion  of  fraud.  All  final 
reports  containing  detected  irregularities  where  fraud  is  suspected  and  for  which  sufficient 
relevant and reliable evidence has been collected are sent to the Public Prosecutor’s Office. 

Executive Agency ‘Certification Audit of European Agriculture Funds’ 

The agency is not a competent authority for reporting irregularities, but compliance with the 
procedures for the administration of irregularities is checked during the audit engagements. 

48 

 
 
Where audit engagements reveal irregular expenditure, it is withdrawn from the claim to the 
European Commission. 

1.6.  Croatia 

Q.1.  Have  you  ensured  that  verification  and  monitoring  measures  are  kept  at  a  high 
level? 

☒YES, fully implementing the recommendation 

If  you  implemented  fully  the  recommendation,  could  you  indicate  how  this  was 
achieved?  Can  you  share  any  specific  finding  in  relation  to  such  measures?  Have 
detections increased, decreased or remained stable overall? 

Under the current exceptional circumstances related to the COVID-19 outbreak, established 
procedures remain fully applicable. Taking into account specific situation in which the health 
care  facilities  and  social  service  providers  of  accommodation  for  elderly  and  seriously  ill 
adults and adults with disabilities are found during the COVID-19 outbreak (especially in the 
case  of  Croatia,  and  COVID-19  outbreak  in  those  facilities),  the  Ministry  of  Regional 
Development  and  EU  Funds,  as  the  Managing  Authority  for  the  Operational  Programme 
Competitiveness and Cohesion 2014-2020, introduced an exception concerning the procedure 
for  on-the-spot  verifications  of  operations  conducted  in  mentioned  facilities.  In  this  regard, 
the conditions and procedures of conducting the checks have been determined exceptionally 
allowing the checks to be done remotely via information technology in a real time. This means 
that  in  a  case  it  needs  to  be  carried  out  in  particularly  sensitive  premises  (where  required 
conditions  could  not  be  fulfilled)  within  health  care  facilities  and  upon  previous  formal 
consultation with the Ministry of Health, a special procedure was introduced.  

This  exception  is  based  on  information  given  on  CRI  II  Platform  that  under  the  current 
circumstances of the pandemic, on-the-spot verifications may be impacted by the rules set up 
by the national  authorities for  protecting public  health. Therefore, it is  the responsibility of 
the managing authority to decide on the opportunity for having procedures with a temporary 
character,  adapted  to  the  existing  crisis,  considering  all  elements,  the  potential  impact  on 
beneficiaries and the risk involved by each project.  

Q.2  Have  you  ensured  that  emergency  procurement  is  used  on  the  basis  of  a  case-by-
case assessment? 

☒YES, fully implementing the recommendation 

If you implemented fully the recommendation, could you indicate which procedures you 
have put in place to achieve that?  

Article  131,  paragraph  1,  point  3  of  the  Law  on  Public  Procurement  stipulates  that  the 
contracting authority may use the negotiated procedure without prior publication of a call for 
tenders  for  the  award  of  public  procurement  contracts  to  the  extent  necessary  if,  due  to 
extreme  urgency  caused  by  events  that  contracting  authority  could  not  foresee,  it  is  not 
possible  to  comply  with  the  deadlines  stipulated  for  open  or  restricted  procedures  or 
competitive  negotiated  procedures,  provided  that  the  circumstances  invoked  by  the 
contracting authority to justify extreme urgency must not  in  any event  be attributable by its 
actions.  

49 

 
 
The European Commission's communication on the method of procurement in the conditions 
of  a  pandemic  has  been  published  on  the  Public  Procurement  Portal,  and  the  Ministry  of 
Economy and Sustainable Development provides expert assistance by giving opinions to those 
entities which need it.  

Q.3 Have you already completed the transition to e-procurement processes?  

☒YES, fully implementing the recommendation 

Q.4 Have you taken any measures to further strengthen transparency in the use of EU 
funds, in particular in relation to emergency procurement?  

☒YES 

If yes, could you specify which ones and how they strengthen the existing transparency 
framework? 

Obligation  to publish the Contract  Award Notice is  stipulated by Article 248 of the Law on 
Public  Procurement,  Article  249  stipulates  the  possibility  of  publishing  the  Notice  for 
voluntary  ex  ante  transparency  and  the  right  to  appeal  is  stipulated  by  Article  408.  In 
addition, urgent procurement system when it comes to EU funds is subject to potential ex post 
controls. 

During the COVID-19 crisis, in addition to the Guidance from the European Commission on 
using the public procurement framework in the emergency situation related to the COVID-19 
crisis,  the  Ministry  of  Economy  and  Sustainable  Development  issued  recommendations  on 
stipulating  and  submitting  the  tender  guarantee  in  the  new  situation.  In  addition, 
recommendations regarding public opening of tenders were issued, which is the proof that the 
public procurement system is adapting to the new circumstances.  

Education also adapts to new circumstances. Training programmes are held online and cover 
appropriate  topics:  Public  procurement  in  the  COVID-19  crisis  situation;  Procurement 
documentation  in  the  COVID-19  crisis  conditions;  Public  procurement  at  the  time  of  the 
pandemic; Negotiated procedure without  prior publication of a call for tenders and the most 
common irregularities in the implementation of this procedure according to the decisions of 
the  State  Commission 
for  Supervision  of  Public  Procurement  Procedures;  Simple 
procurement: from planning to execution during a pandemic, etc. Anti-corruption as a topic is 
included in the introductory part of mandatory education prior to obtaining Certificate in the 
field of public procurement.  

Contracting  authorities  in  the  areas  affected  by  the  earthquake  were  provided  with  direct 
professional assistance at the newly opened e-mail address and contact number, which also 
encourages transparency. 

Q.5 Have you ensured that the reporting of irregularities, in particular non-fraudulent, 
for the 2014-2020 programming period is closely monitored? 

☒YES, fully implementing the recommendation 

If you implemented fully the recommendation, could you indicate which procedures you 
have put in place? Which was the outcome of these new procedures? 

50 

 
 
Pursuant to Common National Rules issued by the Ministry of Regional Development and EU 
Funds  as  Managing  Authority  for  the  Operational  Programme  “Competitiveness  and 
Cohesion”,  Intermediate  bodies  level  2  are  obliged  to  quarterly  file  Irregularity  Reports 
using the IMS to the Service for Combating Irregularities and Fraud (SCIF) established at the 
Ministry of Finance. The Irregularity Reports have to be filed no later than 15 working days 
following  the  end  of  each  quarter  via  IMS.  The  Irregularity  Reports  contain  all  relevant 
information  on  the  course,  type  and  scope  of  actions  /  activities  taken  by  the  competent 
authorities  in  the  relevant  quarter.  SCIF  checks  the  received  Irregularity  Reports  and  may 
additionally request clarification or request amendments to the Report. Amendments must be 
made without delay in order for the Irregularity Report to be sent to the Commission. SCIF 
approves the Irregularity Report and sends it to the Commission via IMS. 

In  addition,  Intermediate  bodies  level  2  may  also  file  without  delay  an  Urgent  Irregularity 
Report  to  SCIF  via  IMS  in  cases  where  an  identified  irregularity  may  very  quickly  cause 
consequences outside the territory of the Republic of Croatia and in cases where a new form 
of  irregularity  has  been  identified.  SCIF  sends  the  Urgent  Irregularity  Report  to  the 
Commission without delay via IMS. 

In conclusion, Intermediate bodies level 2 keep a register of irregularities where all affirmed 
and pending irregularities from the beginning of the eligibility period are listed. Intermediate 
bodies level  2 submit the register to  the Certifying Authority and to Managing  Authority by 
the 10th of the following month and to SCIF no later than 15 working days following the end 
of each quarter.  

The  outcome  of  these  procedures  is  to  have  available  data  on  hand  and  to  take  decision 
makers  one  step  further  in  assessing  whether  and  how  goals  are  being  achieved  over  time 
when it comes to prevention, detection, reporting and acting upon the irregularities. 

1.7.  Czechia 

Q.1.  Have  you  ensured  that  verification  and  monitoring  measures  are  kept  at  a  high 
level? 

☒YES, fully implementing the recommendation 

If  you  implemented  fully  the  recommendation,  could  you  indicate  how  this  was 
achieved?  Can  you  share  any  specific  finding  in  relation  to  such  measures?  Have 
detections increased, decreased or remained stable overall? 

The  measures  of  verification  and  monitoring  are  constantly  kept  at  a  high  level  in  the 
Czechia.  The  processes  set  for  awarding  public  contracts  in  procurement  procedure  are 
obligatorily electronic by law and electronic tools must be used for receiving of bids, buyers 
are  also  obliged  to  store  their  procurement  procedure  documentation.  Thus,  effective 
verification and monitoring are enabled. 

Internal  and  external  audits  and  other  compulsory  checks  of  recipients  and  managing 
authorities alike are carried out  as planned despite encountered difficulties and challenges. 
The  managing  authority  is  closely  cooperating  with  auditors  and  recommendations  are 
addressed in time and subsequently also duly reviewed. 

The detections have remained stable. 

51 

 
 
Q.2  Have  you  ensured  that  emergency  procurement  is  used  on  the  basis  of  a  case-by-
case assessment? 

☒YES, fully implementing the recommendation 

If you implemented fully the recommendation, could you indicate which procedures you 
have put in place to achieve that?  

Provided  that  the  statutory  conditions  are  met,  the  contracting  authorities  may  use  the 
existing procedures permitted by the Act No. 134/2016 Coll., On Public Procurement (PPA), 
in  particular  negotiated  procedure  without  prior  publication,  or  may  make  use  of  an 
exception  pursuant  to  §  29  letter  c)  PPA,  which  can  be  used  in  the  case  of  awarding  or 
fulfilling a public contract within the framework of special security measures provided for by 
other legal regulations, and at the same time no measure can be taken that would allow the 
procurement procedure to be carried out within the set time limits.  

The use of these procedures is in the sole responsibility of the contracting authority and in the 
case  of  control,  the  fulfilment  of  the  conditions  for  their  use  will  be  assessed  on  a  case-by-
case  basis.  These  procedures  should  be  used  by  the  contracting  authority  exclusively  for 
urgent purchases related to the management of the current threat. 

Each procurement is assessed case-by-case (electronic approval workflow). All procurements 
are fully electronic through electronic approval tools. Contracts have to be published in the 
Contracts register of the Ministry of Interior. 

Further,  buyers  are  provided  with  thorough  methodological,  consulting  and  educational 
support in  this regard. A number of  guidelines  and methodologies were issued and massive 
training  campaign  has  been  organised  addressing,  among  others,  the  topic  of  awarding  of 
contracts. 

Nevertheless, none of the Managing Authorities providing input to this document has used 
emergency procurement in the year 2020. 

Q.3 Have you already completed the transition to e-procurement processes?  

☒YES, fully implementing the recommendation 

Q.4 Have you taken any measures to further strengthen transparency in the use of EU 
funds, in particular in relation to emergency procurement?  

☒NO 

If not, could you explain why and how your current system already ensures an adequate 
level of transparency? 

Structural reform of the public procurement law is not necessary to strengthen transparency 
in the use of EU funds. Transparency is already ensured, e.g. by the well-functioning system 
of electronic tools (where the controlling entities may be granted access rights and the role of 
surveillance). 

52 

 
 
Some  managing  authorities  have  been  subject  to  standard  auditing  procedures,  which  even 
recently did not result in requiring further strengthening of existing transparency procedures. 
The  main  focus  of  managing  authorities  during  the  pandemic  was  to  maintain  and  sustain 
operational functionality without compromising any of the required functions. 

Even  though  not  related  to  EU  funds,  it  is  worth  mentioning  that  the  Supreme  Audit  Office 
carried  out  a  check  “Funds  spent  in  connection  with  the  epidemiological  situation  in  the 
Czechia”.  The  aim  of  this  check  was  to  find  out  whether  state  authorities  spent  financial 
means in line with the legal provisions, especially for the procurement of personal protection 
and other medical materials and services realised for the purpose of anti-epidemic measures 
in connection with COVID-19. The results are not yet available.  

Q.5 Have you ensured that the reporting of irregularities, in particular non-fraudulent, 
for the 2014-2020 programming period is closely monitored? 

☒YES, fully implementing the recommendation 

If you implemented fully the recommendation, could you indicate which procedures you 
have put in place? Which was the outcome of these new procedures? 

Irregularities  reporting  for  the  2014–2020  programming  period  is  ensured  in  accordance 
with  the  Methodological  guide  for  the  financial  flows  of  programmes  co-financed  by  the 
European  Structural  Funds,  the  Cohesion  Fund  and  the  European  Maritime  and  Fisheries 
Fund  for  the  programming  period  2014-2020.  The  procedures  are  included  in  the  internal 
documents of the managing authorities. 

Knowledge sharing and educating not only beneficiaries but all involved parties including the 
implementation  structure,  has  had  the  desired  effect  in  reduction  of  non-fraudulent 
irregularities  over  the  monitored  period.  Other  factors  have  to  be  also  taken  into 
consideration:  Changes  in  legal  framework,  Act  on  civil  service,  more  stable  economic 
environment  as  opposed  to  the  financial  crisis  2008,  which  partially  affected  the  previous 
programming period. 

Registered irregularities are regularly monitored in accordance with the valid methodologies 
of  the  Ministry  of  Finance  and  the  Ministry  of  Regional  Development.  At  the  same  time, 
cooperation is underway with the Financial Administration Bodies, which are responsible for 
supervising  compliance  with  Act  No.  218/2000  Coll.  on  budgetary  rules,  including  the 
recovery of funds from grant beneficiaries. 

Working  group  for  monitoring  of  irregularities  and  evidence  of  fraud  and  irregularities  in 
information  systems  of  the  managing  authorities  ensure  regular  monitoring  of  the  status  as 
well as continuous overview.  

An  important  factor  in  some  of  the  operational  programmes  was  the  continuity  and 
experience from the previous programming periods of the managing authority’s team as well 
as  of  the  project  beneficiaries.  The  managing  authority  focuses  on  discovering  the 
irregularities  in  the  course  of  assessment  of  payment  requests  leading  to  immediate 
corrections.  Ex-ante  control  of  public  procurements  also  contributes  to  early  detection  of 
errors and enables corrections of the payment requests. 

53 

 
 
1.8.  Denmark 

Q.1.  Have  you  ensured  that  verification  and  monitoring  measures  are  kept  at  a  high 
level? 

None of the participants in the survey found that question of emergency procurement related 
to EU-funding was of relevance to their administrative field. 

The Danish Fishery Agency has implemented red flags to increase the focus on discovering 
cases of fraud in general, although the measure is unrelated to emergency procurement and 
to COVID-19 related expenditures. 

Q.2  Have  you  ensured  that  emergency  procurement  is  used  on  the  basis  of  a  case-by-
case assessment? 

None of the participants in the survey found that question of emergency procurement related 
to EU-funding was of relevance to their administrative field. 

Q.3 Have you already completed the transition to e-procurement processes?  

☒YES, fully implementing the recommendation 

Q.4 Have you taken any measures to further strengthen transparency in the use of EU 
funds, in particular in relation to emergency procurement?  

None of the participants in the survey found that question of emergency procurement related 
to EU-funding was of relevance to their administrative field. 

Q.5 Have you ensured that the reporting of irregularities, in particular non-fraudulent, 
for the 2014-2020 programming period is closely monitored? 

☒YES, fully implementing the recommendation 

If you implemented fully the recommendation, could you indicate which procedures you 
have put in place? Which was the outcome of these new procedures? 

Danish Fishery Agency has stated that every quarter of the year, the agency’s control team 
coordinates  with  the  agency’s  economics  department  for  detection  of  irregularities.  If  there 
are  irregularities,  these  are  reported  through  IMS.  These  are  then  checked  by  the  Danish 
Agricultural Agency. Corrections are send back to the Danish Fishery Agency to ensure that 
the reporting is useful.  

The  Danish  Business  Authority  has  stated  that  they  have  a  procedure  for  reporting 
irregularities in IMS according to the Commission’s regulation and the OLAF handbook. 

1.9.  Estonia 

Q.1.  Have  you  ensured  that  verification  and  monitoring  measures  are  kept  at  a  high 
level? 

☒YES, fully implementing the recommendation 

54 

 
 
If  you  implemented  fully  the  recommendation,  could  you  indicate  how  this  was 
achieved?  Can  you  share  any  specific  finding  in  relation  to  such  measures?  Have 
detections increased, decreased or remained stable overall? 

Estonian  authorities responsible for  the ESI, AGRI-FISH and HOME funds report that they 
will continue with the professional verification and monitoring measures.  

The Implementing Agency for AGRI and FISH funds started to test using ARACHNE. 

Q.2  Have  you  ensured  that  emergency  procurement  is  used  on  the  basis  of  a  case-by-
case assessment? 

☒YES, fully implementing the recommendation 

If you implemented fully the recommendation, could you indicate which procedures you 
have put in place to achieve that? 

Estonian  authorities  responsible  for  the  ESI  and  HOME  funds  report  that  all  emergency 
procurements are checked before the payment.   

The  Implementing  Agency  for  AGRI  and  FISH  funds  reports  that  they  do  not  foresee  any 
COVID-19 related emergency procurement.  

Q.3 Have you already completed the transition to e-procurement processes?  

☒YES, fully implementing the recommendation  

98% of the Estonian Public Procurements are e-procurements. 

☒YES, partly implementing the recommendation 

Not all private procurements for different funds are made through the e-procurement systems. 
Some measures still apply the 3-offer rule. 

Q.4 Have you taken any measures to further strengthen transparency in the use of EU 
funds, in particular in relation to emergency procurement?  

☐YES 

The  Implementing  Agency  for  AGRI  and  FISH  funds  started  to  test  ARACHNE  and  will 
implement it into their daily procedures.   

☒NO 

Estonian  authorities  responsible  for  the  ESI  and  HOME  funds  report  that  all  emergency 
procurements are checked before the payment.   

Q.5 Have you ensured that the reporting of irregularities, in particular non-fraudulent, 
for the 2014-2020 programming period is closely monitored? 

☒YES, fully implementing the recommendation 

55 

 
 
Estonian  authorities  responsible  for  the  ESI,  AGRI,  FISH  and  HOME  funds  report  that  all 
Implementing Bodies must carry out a risk assessment procedure and report all detected or 
prevented irregularities via the e-based system. 

1.10.  Finland 

Q.1.  Have  you  ensured  that  verification  and  monitoring  measures  are  kept  at  a  high 
level? 

☒YES, fully implementing the recommendation 

If  you  implemented  fully  the  recommendation,  could  you  indicate  how  this  was 
achieved?  Can  you  share  any  specific  finding  in  relation  to  such  measures?  Have 
detections increased, decreased or remained stable overall?  

During the corona pandemic, the managing authority has instructed the intermediate bodies 
to conduct checks and monitoring using the means and tools already in place (such as remote 
access and electronically) while still maintaining high quality and not reducing the quantity. 

Q.2  Have  you  ensured  that  emergency  procurement  is  used  on  the  basis  of  a  case-by-
case assessment? 

☒YES, fully implementing the recommendation 

If you implemented fully the recommendation, could you indicate which procedures you 
have put in place to achieve that?  

The reporting of projects exceeding the thresholds is guided by the IT system for Structural 
Funds projects. The managing authority organised training for the intermediate bodies on the 
procedures for projects below the thresholds in 2020.  

Q.3 Have you already completed the transition to e-procurement processes?  

☒YES, fully implementing the recommendation 

The procedure for projects exceeding the EU thresholds is completely electronic. 

Q.4 Have you taken any measures to further strengthen transparency in the use of EU 
funds, in particular in relation to emergency procurement?  

☒NO 

If not, could you explain why and how your current system already ensures an adequate 
level of transparency?  

The  Procurement  Act,  which  entered  into  force  in  2017,  is  considered  to  adequately  ensure 
the principle of transparency. 

Q.5 Have you ensured that the reporting of irregularities, in particular non-fraudulent, 
for the 2014-2020 programming period is closely monitored? 

56 

 
 
☒YES, fully implementing the recommendation 

If you implemented fully the recommendation, could you indicate which procedures you 
have put in place? Which was the outcome of these new procedures?  

In their training sessions (two training sessions held in 2020) the certifying authority and the 
managing  authority  reminded  the  intermediate  bodies  about  keeping  information  on 
irregularities updated in the monitoring system and monitoring the status of the treatment of 
the findings. 

1.11.  France 

Q.1.  Have  you  ensured  that  verification  and  monitoring  measures  are  kept  at  a  high 
level? 

☒YES, fully implementing the recommendation 

If  you  implemented  fully  the  recommendation,  could  you  indicate  how  this  was 
achieved?  Can  you  share  any  specific  finding  in  relation  to  such  measures?  Have 
detections increased, decreased or remained stable overall? 

Following  the  outbreak  of  COVID-19  and  its  consequences,  ANCT  (Agence  nationale  de  la 
cohésion des territoires, national agency for territorial cohesion) fully relayed to the ERDF 
managing authorities the provisions set out by the European Commission (Guidance from the 
European  Commission  on  using  the  public  procurement  framework  in  the  emergency 
situation  related  to  the COVID-19  crisis  (2020/C  108  I/01))  and  the  platform  for  replies  to 
national authorities on CRII+ measures. 

Q.2  Have  you  ensured  that  emergency  procurement  is  used  on  the  basis  of  a  case-by-
case assessment? 

☒YES, fully implementing the recommendation 

If you implemented fully the recommendation, could you indicate which procedures you 
have put in place to achieve that?  

The  European  Commission’s  communiqué  on  the  information-sharing  space  of  the  ANCT 
(‘mon-ANCT’) has been sent to the managing authorities, meetings and working groups have 
been organised, and national CRII FAQs and a management note have been drawn up, which 
cover  most  of  these  provisions  and  highlight  the  exceptional  nature  of  emergency 
procurements as a derogation to be decided on on a case by case basis. 

Q.3 Have you already completed the transition to e-procurement processes?  

☒YES, partly implementing the recommendation 

If partially or not, could you briefly explain at which point you are in the process? 

France  has  not  yet  moved  to  open  data  with  regard  to  public  procurement.  Nevertheless, 
verifying  the basic and regulatory requirements  for transforming  public procurement  into a 

57 

 
 
fully  digital  process  is  part  of  the  monitoring  of  public  procurement  carried  out  by  the 
managing authorities. 

Q.4 Have you taken any measures to further strengthen transparency in the use of EU 
funds, in particular in relation to emergency procurement?  

☒NO 

Q.5 Have you ensured that the reporting of irregularities, in particular non-fraudulent, 
for the 2014-2020 programming period is closely monitored? 

☒YES, fully implementing the recommendation 

If you implemented fully the recommendation, could you indicate which procedures you 
have put in place? Which was the outcome of these new procedures? 

For the period 2017-2019, the Audit Authority (CICC) entered all reports of non-fraudulent 
irregularities (and suspected fraud) in the IMS application. 

Since 2020, the managing authorities are responsible for reporting. These authorities request 
reports through the IT system (SYNERGIE). The audit authority checks, validates or rejects 
them and transmits them to the Commission via the SYNERGIE application. 

In order to ensure that non-fraudulent EAGF and EAFRD agricultural irregularities for the 
2014-2020  programming  period  are  regularly  reported  to  the  Commission,  the  procedures 
put in place by the CICC EAGF consist of sending regular reminders to the paying agencies 
responsible  for  submitting  irregularities  to  the  Commission’s  Irregularity  Management 
System (IMS).  

ANCT  helps  to  ensure  that  non-fraudulent  reports  are  identified,  in  particular  by  regularly 
bringing  up  the  mandatory  conditions  for  reporting  irregularities  and  information  through 
the  dedicated  tool  in  the  FAQs  published  for  the  2024-2020  programming  period,  which 
include a chapter dedicated to checks and irregularities, in working groups and in replies to 
questions from the national managing authorities. 

1.12.  Germany  

Q.1.  Have  you  ensured  that  verification  and  monitoring  measures  are  kept  at  a  high 
level? 

☒YES, fully implementing the recommendation 

If  you  implemented  fully  the  recommendation,  could  you  indicate  how  this  was 
achieved?  Can  you  share  any  specific  finding  in  relation  to  such  measures?  Have 
detections increased, decreased or remained stable overall? 

Germany has advanced management/control systems in the agriculture and fisheries sector. 
These systems have been operating at a high level for years and are continuously adapted to 
new challenges and objectives. 

58 

 
 
For  the  measures  under  the  European  Regional  Development  Fund  (ERDF)  and  the 
European Social Fund (ESF), the existing high level has been maintained, in particular with 
regard to the administrative checks to be carried out. We continue to carry out an annual self-
assessment to combat fraud. The number of cases of fraud and suspected fraud remains low. 

Q.2  Have  you  ensured  that  emergency  procurement  is  used  on  the  basis  of  a  case-by-
case assessment? 

☒YES, fully implementing the recommendation 

If you implemented fully the recommendation, could you indicate which procedures you 
have put in place to achieve that?  

Germany fully applies the relevant rules on procurement, including on e-procurement. 

Q.3 Have you already completed the transition to e-procurement processes?  

☒YES, fully implementing the recommendation 

Germany fully applies the relevant rules on procurement, including on e-procurement. 

Q.4 Have you taken any measures to further strengthen transparency in the use of EU 
funds, in particular in relation to emergency procurement?  

☒YES 

Q.5 Have you ensured that the reporting of irregularities, in particular non-fraudulent, 
for the 2014-2020 programming period is closely monitored? 

☒YES, fully implementing the recommendation 

If you implemented fully the recommendation, could you indicate which procedures you 
have put in place? Which was the outcome of these new procedures? 

Germany  has  had  advanced  management/control  systems  for  years.  This  includes  a  major 
focus  on  fraud  prevention  and  the  reporting  of  irregularities.  The  systems  ensure  proper 
reporting of non-fraudulent irregularities, too. Moreover, the Federal Ministry of Finance, as 
the coordinating body, regularly organises workshops in this area. 

1.13.  Greece 

Q.1.  Have  you  ensured  that  verification  and  monitoring  measures  are  kept  at  a  high 
level? 

☒YES, fully implementing the recommendation 

If  you  implemented  fully  the  recommendation,  could  you  indicate  how  this  was 
achieved?  Can  you  share  any  specific  finding  in  relation  to  such  measures?  Have 
detections increased, decreased or remained stable overall? 

59 

 
 
Special Institutional Support Service: The provisions of the regulatory framework regarding 
the  administrative  verifications  required  under  Article  125  of  the  Common  Provisions 
Regulation  (CPR)  continue  to  apply.  On  that  basis,  and  in  accordance  with  the  applicable 
management  and  control  system  (MCS),  on-the-spot  verifications  of  a  sample  of  operations 
which are in progress and for which expenditure was included in an interim payment request 
during  the  accounting  year  are  scheduled  after  the  end  of  the  first  six  months  of  each 
accounting year. 

As  regards  sampling,  instructions  were  issued  for  the  2019-2020  accounting  year  in 
document ref. 57023/ΕΥΘΥ/04-06-2020 entitled ‘Scheduling on the-spot verifications for the 
2019-2020 accounting year  (6th accounting year)’, following the measures taken to contain 
the COVID 19 pandemic. 

To carry out on-the-spot verifications, taking account of the restrictions in place, which affect 
the  operation  of  both  Managing  Authorities  and  beneficiaries,  the  Special  Institutional 
Support  Service 
in  document  ref. 
122073/ΕΥΘΥ/17-11-20. 

instructions  on  alternative  approaches 

issued 

Similar  instructions  were  issued  for  all  managing  bodies  for  the  7th  accounting  year  in 
document ref. 9902/ΕΥΘΥ/27-01-2021. 

The  above  instructions  include  adjustments  to  the  methodology  and  practices  for  the 
verification  of  expenditure  and  the  physical  scope  of  operations,  in  order  to  ensure  a 
sufficient  audit  trail  using  all  available  means,  despite  the  restrictions  in  place  due  to 
COVID-19. 

Finally,  when  the  annual  accounts  are  submitted,  it  is  confirmed  that  the  instructions  have 
been  followed  and  that  adequate  administrative  verifications  have  been  carried  out  on  the 
expenditure included in the accounts. 

Q.2  Have  you  ensured  that  emergency  procurement  is  used  on  the  basis  of  a  case-by-
case assessment? 

☒YES, fully implemented the recommendation 

If you implemented fully the recommendation, could you indicate which procedures you 
have put in place to achieve that? 

The Hellenic Single Public Procurement Authority (HSPPA), which is responsible for issuing 
guidelines,  as  laid  down  in  Article  2(2)(d)  of  Law  4013/2011,  issued  Guideline  24  (HSPPA 
Decision 1/15.04.2020) on ‘Specific matters concerning the award and management of public 
contracts in the context of the response to the COVID-19 health crisis and the measures taken 
to  prevent  the  spread  of  the  virus’.  The  purpose  of  this  Guideline  is  to  assist  contracting 
authorities/entities  and  economic  operators  in  the  correct  application  of  the  possibilities 
offered  by  the  EU  Directives,  as  transposed  into  national  law  (Law  4412/2016),  and  of  the 
special  or  exceptional  provisions  established  by  legislative  acts  for  a  limited  period  of 
validity.  In  addition,  the  HSPPA  issued  Opinions  (for  example:  Α10/2020,  Α14/2020, 
Α16/2020,  Α20/2020,  Α21/2020,  Α31/2020  and  Α32/2020),  in  which  it  gave  its  opinion  on 
legislative  proposals  that  provided  for  derogations  from  national  legislation  for  emergency 
procurement. 

60 

 
 
Q.3 Have you already completed the transition to e-procurement processes? 

☒YES, fully implemented the recommendation 

The e-procurement procedure for awarding public contracts with an estimated value of more 
than  €60  000.00  plus  VAT  is  complete  (see  Article  36  of  Law  4412/2016),  and  covers  the 
stages from publication of the notice and the submission, opening and evaluation of tenders to 
submission of the contract. However, Article 32Α of the same Law provides for an exception 
to the mandatory use of the National Electronic Public Procurement System (ESIDIS) in the 
event  of  a  negotiated  procedure  without  prior  publication,  as  follows:  ‘The  following  cases 
referred to in Article 32 shall be exempt from the mandatory application of Articles 22(1), 36, 
72(1)(a), 79(1) to (4) and 221(8) and (9):  

(a)  where  the  possibility  to  award  the  contract  is  limited  to  one  predefined  participant,  in 
accordance with paragraphs 2(b), 3, 4(b) and 6; 

(b) due to the urgent nature of the procurement, in accordance with paragraph 2(c); or 

(c) due to the specific characteristics of the transaction in the case of supplies that are listed 
and purchased on a commodity exchange in accordance with paragraph 4(c) [...].’ 

As regards electronic invoicing, Directive 2014/55/EU has been transposed into Greek law by 
Articles  148-154  of  Law  4601/2019  (Government  Gazette,  Series  I,  No  44/2019),  and  the 
associated  implementing  Joint  Ministerial  Decisions  have  also  been  issued  (Government 
Gazette, Series II, No 2425/2020). 

Q.4 Have you taken any measures to further strengthen transparency in the use of EU 
funds, in particular in relation to emergency procurement? 

☒YES 

If yes, could you specify which ones and how they strengthen the existing transparency 
framework? 

In  its  letter  ref.  4121/30.07.2020,  the  HSPPA  provided  contracting  authorities  and  entities 
with clarifications regarding compliance with publication formalities in the tender procedure 
in the event of a change in the terms of the contract notice.  

In  addition,  the  HSPPA  took  the  initiative,  in  cooperation  with  the  Ministry  of  Digital 
Governance, to  ensure the necessary parameterisation of  the e-register for public contracts 
(KIMDIS) to include the options ‘Direct award – COVID-19’ and ‘Negotiation without prior 
publication  –  COVID-19’  in  the  drop-down  menu  under  ‘Type  of  procedure’,  for  both  the 
‘New contract’ form and the ‘New award decision’ form. It then issued letter ref. 6901/08-12-
2020  informing  all  contracting  authorities/entities  of  their  obligation  to  use  KIMDIS 
following its parameterisation. The above initiatives can be considered as individual steps of 
an action plan,  the next  step of  which will  be sampling  from the two KIMDIS categories in 
question (‘Direct award – COVID-19’ and ‘Negotiation without prior publication – COVID-
19’)  to  check  whether  there  has  been  any  circumvention  of  the  exceptional  provisions 
established for emergency procurement or of Guideline 24. 

61 

 
 
In addition to the above, the HSPPA has set up a platform for reporting fraud and corruption, 
and irregularities in general, in the field of public procurement, which meets the conditions 
for  the  implementation  of  Directive  (EU)  2019/1937  on  the  protection  of  whistleblowers. 
Specifically,  the  HSPPA  has  adopted  the  reporting  platform  as  part  of  the  European 
programme entitled ‘Widely expanding anonymous tipping technology deployment, operation, 
and  trustworthiness  to  combat  corruption  in  eastern  and  southern  Europe  (EAT)’,  with  the 
support of Transparency International Greece and the Hermes Centre for Transparency and 
Human  and  Digital  Rights.  For  the  operation  of  the  platform,  criteria  are  laid  down 
concerning  the  design,  set-up  and  operation  of  user-friendly  reporting  channels.  These 
criteria include the explicit obligation of confidentiality of information, access to information 
by  authorised  bodies  only,  the  explicit  protection  of  the  whistleblower’s  identity,  and  the 
establishment  of  protection  procedures  both  for  the  processing  of  reports  and  for  personal 
data, in accordance with the applicable legislation.  

In  this  regard,  please  note  that  the  HSPPA  ensures  that  a  monitoring  report  on  the  public 
procurement system is drafted and submitted every three years, pursuant to the provisions on 
‘Governance’  of  Law  4412/2016  and  as  part  of  its  responsibilities  for  monitoring  and 
supervising the public procurement system (Law 4013/2011 founding the HSPPA, and Article 
53  of  Law  4605/2019  on  its  organisation  and  operating  rules).  The  report  includes  public 
procurement data and information such as the most common reasons for poor implementation 
or legal uncertainty, including possible structural or recurrent problems in the application of 
the  rules,  the  level  of  participation  of  SMEs  in  public  procurement  procedures,  and  the 
prevention, detection and due reporting of cases of fraud, corruption, conflict of interest and 
other such serious irregularities in the field of public procurement.  

In line with the above, the first monitoring  report was sent  to  the European Commission  in 
June  2018  and  can  be  found  on  DG  GROW’s  website:  https://ec.europa.eu/growth/single-
market/public-procurement/country-reports_en. 

Furthermore,  a  Joint  Ministerial  Decision  laying  down  the  detailed  rules  on  the 
implementation  of  the  above  is  in  the  process  of  being  issued.  To  that  end,  the  HSPPA 
participated in a working group set up in 2020 to prepare a draft Joint Ministerial Decision. 

Finally,  the  HSPPA  can  assist  the  Court  of  Auditors  in  the  exercise  of  its  jurisdiction  over 
pre-contractual audit disputes, in  line with its duty under Article 2(2)(i)  of  Law 4013/2011. 
The  HSPPA  intervenes  as  amicus  curiae  in  these  disputes  or  acts  as  advisor  on  technical 
matters in particular, as requested by the President of the competent formation of the Court 
or by the Court itself (Article 333 of Law 4700/2020). 

As  regards  the  Audit  Authority,  no  audits  on  emergency  procurement  expenditure  and 
procedures  were  carried  out  in  the  previous  year  (2019),  as  no  expenditure  linked  to  the 
COVID-19  crisis  had  been  declared  under  the  6th  accounting  year  (ending  30  June  2020). 
With  a  view  to  improving  transparency  and  sound  financial  management  in  the  use  of  EU 
funds,  the  Audit  Authority  will  adjust  its  methodology  (questionnaires  and  related 
instructions) to take account of the specificities arising in relation to emergency procurement 
in particular as part of the audits for the 7th accounting year, which will include expenditure 
for actions related to COVID-19.  

Q.5 Have you ensured that the reporting of irregularities, in particular non-fraudulent, 
for the 2014-2020 programming period is closely monitored? 

62 

 
 
☒YES, partially implemented  

If you implemented partially the recommendation, could you explain why you think that 
it was a partial implementation and why a full implementation was not possible? Which 
was the outcome of these new procedures? 

The  Managing  Authorities  of  Operational  Programmes  and  the  Audit  Authority  follow  a 
specific  procedure  (‘Reporting  irregularities  to  the  European  Commission’)  under  the 
relevant MCS. 

However, the Audit Authority has reported that the recommendation is partially implemented 
because  not  all  Managing  Authorities  (MAs)  and  Intermediate  Bodies  (IBs)  have  been 
registered in the IMS for the direct electronic transmission of irregularities. The registration 
of these MAs and IBs is  ongoing and they are expected to acquire access shortly. They will 
then be able to report any irregularities they may have detected. 

1.14.  Hungary 

Q.1.  Have  you  ensured  that  verification  and  monitoring  measures  are  kept  at  a  high 
level? 

☒YES, fully implementing the recommendation 

If  you  implemented  fully  the  recommendation,  could  you  indicate  how  this  was 
achieved?  Can  you  share  any  specific  finding  in  relation  to  such  measures?  Have 
detections increased, decreased or remained stable overall? 

To  ensure  the  integrity-based,  transparent  and  accountable  use  of  public  funds,  the  Public 
Procurement Authority ensures that verification and monitoring measures are kept at a high 
level when reviewing the legality of public procurements through the following activities (the 
information and figures below are not limited to EU-funded procurements): 

  Checking the legality of notices: There has been a steady rise in the number of notices 
received  by  the  Public  Procurement  Authority  over  the  past  four  years.  In  2019,  25 
117  notices  were  registered,  processed  and  checked.  During  checks  on  notices  over 
the past four years, there has also been a steady increase in the number of requests for 
further information or clarification sent to contracting authorities in connection with 
these notices, rising to 25 210 requests in 2019. In addition to checks on notices, the 
Public  Procurement  Authority  also  carried  out  checks  on  procurement  documents 
upon request. The Public Procurement Authority’s checks on notices and procurement 
documents  contributed  greatly  towards  ensuring  the  legality  of  procurement 
procedures, which helped in turn to reduce the number of reviews. The purpose of the 
checks  on  notices  is  to  detect  typical  and  one-off  errors  during  mandatory  and 
requested  checks  and  to  remedy  those  errors  by  requesting  further  information  or 
clarification.  As the contracting authorities usually resolve  the problems  reported in 
these requests, these  ex-ante  controls help prevent a number  of  infringements or the 
publication  of  unsuitable  public  procurement  notices.  In  doing  so,  these  checks  on 
notices help greatly to increase transparency in the public procurement sector. 

  Checking  the  legality  of  negotiated  procedures  without  publication:  For  details,  see 

the answer to question 2.  

63 

 
 
  Checks on the performance and amendment of contracts: In 2019, for the fourth year 
in  a  row,  the  Public  Procurement  Authority  carried  out  checks  on  the  performance 
and  amendment  of  contracts  and  investigated  breaches  of  contract  reported  by 
contracting  authorities,  in  accordance  with  the  enabling  provisions  of  the  Public 
Procurement  Act.  In  2019,  68  checks  were  ordered,  and  34  contract  breaches  were 
investigated.  Since  1  January  2019,  the  Public  Procurement  Authority  has  also 
carried out checks on contracts concluded under concession procurement procedures 
and  on  the  results  of  design  contests.  In  2019,  review  procedures  before  the  Public 
Procurement Arbitration Board were initiated in 21 cases as a result of infringements 
of public procurement law detected through the Authority’s checks on contracts. As a 
result of these procedures, 20 arbitration board decisions establishing an infringement 
were  issued.  By  comparison,  in  2017  the  Public  Procurement  Arbitration  Board 
established an infringement in 41 out of 55 review procedures initiated ex officio on 
the basis of checks on contracts by the Public Procurement Authority, while in 2018 
the Arbitration Board established an infringement in 37 out of 40 review procedures 
initiated  ex  officio  on  the  basis  of  checks  on  contracts  by  the  Public  Procurement 
Authority. 

In  terms  of  EU  support,  the  managing  authorities  and  the  minister  responsible  for  public 
procurement carry out checks on the regularity of public procurement procedures conducted 
using support awarded under EU programmes. For public procurement  procedures with an 
estimated  value  greater  than  or  equal  to  the  EU  thresholds,  and  for  public  procurement 
procedures  with  an  estimated  value  of  HUF  300  million  or  more  in  the  case  of  works 
contracts  and  concessions,  procurement  law  checks  are  carried  out  by  the  Department  of 
Public  Procurement  Control  (DPPC)  headed  by  the  minister  responsible  for  public 
procurement.  The  DPPC  produced  and  implemented  a  specific  action  plan  aimed  at 
improving  its  management  verifications  in  2018  2019,  which  the  European  Commission 
conclusions  on  audit  mission  No 
(final 
considered  adequate  and 
REGC214HU0068). 

sufficient 

As  audit  authority,  the  Directorate-General  for  Audit  of  European  Funds  (EUTAF)  is 
responsible for carrying out system audits, carrying out sample audits on projects, monitoring 
the findings of audit reports, following up recommendations, and implementing action plans. 
During the most recent system audit carried out by EUTAF in accordance with the European 
Commission’s  guidance  note  on  system  assessments  No  EGESIF_14-0010,  the  audit  period 
was between 1 July 2019 and 30 June 2020. 

Q.2  Have  you  ensured  that  emergency  procurement  is  used  on  the  basis  of  a  case-by-
case assessment? 

☒YES, fully implementing the recommendation 

If you implemented fully the recommendation, could you indicate which procedures you 
have put in place to achieve that?  

In 2019, there were just 273 instances where contracting authorities informed the president of 
the  Public  Procurement  Authority  that  they  were  initiating  a  negotiated  procedure  without 
publication  (the  number  of  negotiated  procedures  initiated  without  publication  was  329  in 
2018, 482 in 2017, and 870 in 2016). Within his/her legality review powers, the president of 
the Public Procurement Authority verifies rigorously in all cases whether the conditions are 

64 

 
 
met  for  using  the  negotiated  procedure  without  publication  on  an  exceptional  basis.  If  the 
Authority establishes during its review that not all the conditions are met for the legal basis 
chosen, or  that the  existence of  the legal basis cannot  be clearly established, it will  issue a 
request for clarification so as to remedy the infringement and pave the way for the conduct of 
a public procurement procedure with publication. Contracting authorities generally respond 
to  requests  for  clarification  without  delay  and  in  full.  In  2019  there  were  27  cases  where, 
after a request for clarification was issued following doubts about the existence of the legal 
basis  chosen,  contracting  authorities  lawfully  withdrew  their  invitation  to  tender  and 
abandoned  their  intention  to  carry  out  a  negotiated  procedure  without  publication.  The 
president of the Public Procurement Authority initiated review proceedings in 10 cases where 
the legal basis was unfounded. The president of the Public Procurement Authority delivered a 
decision that the legal basis for a negotiated procedure without publication was valid in 236 
instances. As those procedures were unsuccessful  in  9 cases, contracts were  concluded and 
public funds used in just 227 instances. 

These  activities  of  the  Public  Procurement  Authority  over  the  past  five  years  succeeded  in 
reducing  the  number  of  negotiated  procedures  without  publication  –  which  largely  exclude 
competition  –  to  one  thirteenth  [of  all  public  procurement  procedures]  by  2019,  while  the 
proportion of negotiated procedures concluded without publication has remained below 4% 
for  the  past  three  years.  Section  103(4)  of  the  Public  Procurement  Act  requires  the  Public 
Procurement  Authority  to  issue  a  detailed  reasoned  decision  in  the  case  of  negotiated 
procedures without publication, through which the validity of the legal basis for the use of the 
negotiated procedure without publication can be clearly established. The Public Procurement 
Authority  publishes  those  decisions  on  the  e-procurement  system  (EKR)  and  on  its  website. 
(The above figures are not limited to public procurements implemented using EU support.) 

The  DPPC  also  rigorously  verifies  the  conditions  for  the  use  of  emergency  procurement 
procedures  as  part  of  its  checks  on  public  procurement  procedures  conducted  using  EU 
funds. In 2020, two requests to initiate emergency negotiated procedures without publication 
were submitted to the DPPC for ex-ante verification. Based on the findings of the verification 
body, the procurements were ultimately implemented under the open procedure in accordance 
with the directives. 

Q.3 Have you already completed the transition to e-procurement processes?  

☒YES, fully implementing the recommendation 

Q.4 Have you taken any measures to further strengthen transparency in the use of EU 
funds, in particular in relation to emergency procurement?  

☒YES 

If yes, could you specify which ones and how they strengthen the existing transparency 
framework? 

See  the  answer  to  question  2  for  details  regarding  emergency  procurements.  The  Public 
Procurement  Authority’s  activities  aimed  at  strengthening  transparency  include  the  keeping 
of  various  records,  such  as  a  list  of  prohibited  tenderers,  a  code  of  ethics,  the  receipt  and 
thorough investigation of public-interest reports and complaints, publishing the key opinions 
issued by the Authority in the journal edited by the Authority, the online public procurement 
bulletin ‘Közbeszerzési Értesítő Plusz’. 

65 

 
 
The  Public  Procurement  Authority  also  ensures  full  transparency  regarding  public 
procurement procedures through its computerised publication systems. 

By the end of 2019, the details of some 119 000 procedures had been uploaded by contracting 
authorities to  the public procurement  database,  representing over 328 000 documents.  Also 
by the end of 2019, some 7 000 contracting authorities had registered in the e-procurement 
system  (EKR),  which  was  launched  in  January  2018.  Operated  by  the  Prime  Minister’s 
Office, the EKR has gradually taken over the role of data repository on public procurement 
procedures from the public procurement database (KBA). In preparation for the phasing out 
of  the KBA, the Public Procurement  Authority has developed a user-friendly archive on the 
basis of  the KBA to  ensure that all data  remain accessible to  interested  parties.  We will  be 
able  to  discontinue  the  KBA  and  publish  the  KBA  archive  when  the  number  of  uploads 
relating to past procedures diminishes. 

Since  2008,  the  notice-search  module  of  the  Public  Procurement  Authority’s  portal  has 
provided interested parties with access to the notices saved to the portal, which now number 
over 352 000. With its 19 filtering criteria, the search engine is a sophisticated data retrieval 
tool.  

The CoRe contract registration system was launched by the Public Procurement Authority in 
2018. The new system contains descriptions of public procurement contracts concluded since 
2018,  and  the  contracts  themselves  in  PDF  format.  Contracting  authorities  uploaded  more 
than  14  000  contracts  in  2018  and  more  than  18  000  in  2019.  The  CoRe’s  public  search 
engine  allows  hits  to  be  narrowed  down  using  12  filtering  criteria.  The  new  system  has 
replaced the KBA’s contract-upload module, providing a more modern, user-friendly search 
interface both for contracting authorities (new data entry forms and a new platform) and for 
other  interested  parties  (a  public  search  interface).  Further  developments  to  support  the 
Authority’s auditing activities continued in 2020. 

The requirement under the Public Procurement Act for the Authority to compile statistics on 
public  procurement  procedures  and  publish  them  on  its  website  at  regular  intervals  also 
strengthens transparency. 

Our  efforts  to  achieve  greater  transparency  regarding  the  use  of  EU  funds  by  the  Prime 
Minister’s Office in connection with public procurement procedures include the following in 
particular:  

The  strengthening  of  competition  and  transparency  was  one  of  the  key  elements  of  the 
amendment  of  the  Public  Procurement  Act  in  the  last  quarter  of  2019  (the  amendment  was 
promulgated on 19 December 2019): 

  The  procedure  under  Section  113  of  the  Public  Procurement  Act  requiring  the 
publication  of  summary  information  before  the  procedure  is  launched  has  been 
repealed. (Under this procedure, only economic operators which were invited by the 
contracting  authority  to  tender  or  which  expressed  an  interest  during  the  period  of 
publication of the summary information (i.e. within five working days) could submit a 
tender.)  Since  the  amendment,  all  economic  operators  are  required  to  use  public 
notices  when 
to  strengthen  competition  and 
transparency and simplifying the public procurement rules. 

launching  procedures,  helping 

66 

 
 
Some  of  the  provisions  of  the  amendment  of  the  Public  Procurement  Act  and  other  related 
acts that was promulgated on 10 December 2020 also seek to improve transparency:  

 

 

 

in  a  significant  change  to  the  rules  for  works  contracts,  public  procurement 
procedures without publication for contracts  with a value of  up to HUF  300  million 
are no longer authorised under Section 115 of the Public Procurement Act if EU funds 
are involved.  Under the  amendment,  contracting  authorities can no longer  initiate  a 
procedure  for  EU-funded  works  contracts  by  directly  inviting  tenderers,  but  only  by 
means of a public notice, which increases transparency, strengthens fair competition, 
and helps prevent potential conflicts of interest; 

in  the  future,  anyone  will  be  able  to  access  information  on  the  performance  and 
amendment of contracts through the public contract-registry module available before 
the EKR goes live; the information will be accessible in a more transparent structure, 
with a variety of search options; 

the Prime Minister’s Office has issued a notice on the application of legal provisions 
amending  public  procurement  contracts 
the  coronavirus 
emergency.  

in  connection  with 

Q.5 Have you ensured that the reporting of irregularities, in particular non-fraudulent, 
for the 2014-2020 programming period is closely monitored? 

☒YES, fully implementing the recommendation 

If you implemented fully the recommendation, could you indicate which procedures you 
have put in place? Which was the outcome of these new procedures? 

In Hungary, AFCOS is responsible for providing the staff of the relevant national authorities 
with  appropriate  training  on  the  computerised  irregularity  reporting  system  developed  by 
OLAF on behalf of the Commission (the IMS system) and with day-to-day assistance to ensure 
problem-free use of the system.  

To ensure the irregularity reporting obligation imposed on Member States by the EU sectoral 
regulations is met uniformly and in full and to make the content of irregularity reports more 
useful  for  preventing  domestic  fraud/irregularities,  AFCOS  operates  a  working  group  on 
irregularity  reporting,  composed  mainly  of  experts  from  the  managing  authorities  dealing 
with irregularity management and representatives of the certifying authority. 

In addition, in 2020 AFCOS issued some 50 information letters to participants in the domestic 
reporting  structure  in  connection  with  the  technical  operation  and  practical  use  of  the  IMS 
system and the implementation of the reporting obligation laid down in the relevant sectoral 
regulations. 

A measure has been introduced for monitoring reports of specific irregularity cases, in which 
AFCOS produces a separate IMS export file for all managing authorities at the end of each 
year  containing  the  irregularities  reported  during  the  relevant  year  in  connection  with  the 
2014-2020  programming  period,  and  asking  them  to  review  the  file  and  check  whether  a 
report has been produced in the IMS in all cases where the irregularity decision in question 
was subject to the reporting obligation. 

67 

 
 
1.15.  Ireland 

Q.1.  Have  you  ensured  that  verification  and  monitoring  measures  are  kept  at  a  high 
level? 

☒YES, fully implementing the recommendation 

If  you  implemented  fully  the  recommendation,  could  you  indicate  how  this  was 
achieved?  Can  you  share  any  specific  finding  in  relation  to  such  measures?  Have 
detections increased, decreased or remained stable overall? 

Southern  Regional  Assembly  (SRA)  &  Northern,  Western  Regional  Assembly  (NWRA)  (MA 
SEROP  and  BMW  ROP):  Throughout  the  COVID-19  pandemic,  the  SRA  &  NWRA  have 
continued Art 125 Management Verifications, albeit on a remote basis. All relevant areas of 
the Verification process are covered. 

Department of Agriculture, Food & Marine implements robust administrative controls on all 
aid applications, implements procurement practices, which are in line with EU and National 
legislation,  and  performs  on  the  spot  controls,  which  satisfy  the  fund  requirements.  The 
accounting officer is provided with confirmation that these checks are in place on an annual 
basis, for funds administered charged to National and EU budgets from senior management. 
External auditors review the internal financial controls and any recommendations are acted 
upon. 

Q.2  Have  you  ensured  that  emergency  procurement  is  used  on  the  basis  of  a  case-by-
case assessment? 

☒YES, fully implementing the recommendation 

If you implemented fully the recommendation, could you indicate which procedures you 
have put in place to achieve that?  

Southern  Regional  Assembly  (SRA)  &  Northern,  Western  Regional  Assembly  (NWRA)  (MA 
SEROP  &  BMWROP):  Confirmation  by  the  WHO  of  COVID-19  as  a  global  pandemic  in 
March  2020  caused  worldwide  demand  for  PPE  to  reach  unprecedented  levels,  triggering 
severe  disruption  to  global  supply  chains.  This  presented  the  HSE  with  an  extraordinary 
challenge as their traditional sources of supply for these products were depleted at a time of 
unprecedented  demand.    The  crisis  highlighted  the  risks  in  this  regard,  huge  logistical 
distance, long order cycles and reports of short/no shipping of promised orders etc.  

Action  8  of  the  Irish  Government’s  Action  Plan  in  response  to  COVID-19  deals  with 
maintaining access to essential health products, equipment and services. It has an action area 
– securing and sustaining continuity of access and supply to essential health products and to 
assess the short, medium and long-term requirement for and availability of PPE among other 
essential health products. 

Approach :The WHO advised the following strategies for PPE supply chain management  & 
coordination in response to COVID Pandemic;  

  Using  PPE  forecasts  that  are  based  on  rational  quantification  models  to  ensure  the 

rationalization of requested supplies; 

68 

 
 
  Promoting the use of a centralized request management approach to avoid duplication 
of  stock  and  ensuring  strict  adherence  to  essential  stock  management  rules  to  limit 
wastage, overstock and stock ruptures; 

Following  the  outbreak  of  COVID-19  in  February  2020,  HSE  recognized  the  need  to 
considerably  expand  its  sourcing,  logistics  and  distribution  capacity  for  the  supply  of  PPE. 
To reflect the strategic importance of PPE, HSE rapidly developed an integrated, end to end 
Sourcing  and  Distribution  approach  with  a  view  to  managing  the  volume  of  PPE  required 
and ensuring that frontline services which need PPE, have it where and when they need it. 

In  September  2020,  the  Programme  Monitoring  Committees  of  the  BMW  Regional  OP  and 
SEROP  approved  the  creation  of  a  new  Priority  –  Priority  7  Coronavirus  Response  for 
inclusion  in  both  ERDF  Programmes  –  and  within  this  the  introduction  of  a  new  Health 
Support Scheme to support the cost of supplying essential personal protective equipment for 
the Irish healthcare system for use in the fight against COVID-19 in the Southern and Eastern 
and Border Midland and Western regions.  

At the same time, the Monitoring Committee approved the re-allocation of undeclared ERDF 
within the S & E Regional Operational Programme of EUR 121 942 585 from Priorities 1, 2, 
3 and 4 to Priority 7 to the new Health Support Scheme. In the case of the BMWROP a total 
of EUR 103 030 629 of undeclared funds was reallocated to the new Priority 7 HSS scheme 
from Priorities 1, 2 & 3.  This will facilitate the critical work of minimising the impact of the 
global  pandemic  in  the  regions  in  Ireland  and  safeguard  the  health  and  welfare  of  the 
population. 

All  of  the  procurement  in  the  period  March  2020  to  December  2020  is  based  on  direct 
negotiation, whereby the HSE rely  on Article 32  of  the CPR and/or the COVID Emergency 
Procurement Framework (2020/C108/01). 

In November 2020, the SRA declared to the CA an amount of EUR 77 920 823.21 in respect 
of  Priority  7.  In  the  BMW  region,  €35,007,906  was  declared  under  Priority  7.    During  the 
course  of  the  Art  125  verifications  carried  out  prior  to  declaration  The  HSE  Memorandum 
"Report  on  Use  of  Negotiated  Procedure  without  prior  publication  for  urgent  purchase  of 
PPE",  dated  06/04/2020  was  referenced      to  clearly  explain  the  circumstances  that  justify 
extreme  urgency  and  the  reliance  on  Article  32(2)(c)  of  the  Procurement  Directive 
2014/24/EU. 

The  MAs  checked  to  see  if  the  requirements  of  Article  84  of  the  Procurement  Directive 
2014/24/EU  were  met….”for  every  contract  or  framework  agreement  covered  by  this 
Directive…  contracting  authorities  shall  draw  up  a  written  report…  for  negotiated 
procedures without prior publication, the circumstances referred to in Article 32 which justify 
the use of this procedure”. 

For  each  ERDF  declaration,  The  HSE  provided  eighteen  of  these  reports,  one  for  each 
contract included in the declarations. The MAs checked that each report included the contents 
listed in Article 84(1)(a) to (i) and noted that the HSE made use of the provision within Article 
84(1) that "to  the extent  that the contract award  notice drawn up pursuant to  Article 50 or 
Article 75(2) contains the information required in this paragraph, contracting authorities may 
refer  to  that  notice."  Each  Article  84  Report  completed  has  fulfilled  the  four  cumulative 
criteria justifying the use of the negotiated procedure without publication. As per section 2.3 
(Cases of Extreme Urgency -negotiated procedure without publication) these are: 

69 

 
 
2.3.1  Events unforeseeable by the Contracting Authority in question  

2.3.2  Extreme urgency making compliance with general deadlines impossible  

2.3.3  Causal link between the unforeseen event and the extreme urgency  

2.3.4  Only used in order to cover the gap until more stable solutions can be found 

The  Managing  Authorities  checked  that  the  requirements  of  Article  50  of  the  Procurement 
Directive 2014/24/EU to publish a Contract Award Notice were met. Each Article 84 report 
included  a  link  to  the  relevant  Contract  Award  Notice  (CAN)  on  eTenders.  The  Contract 
Award Notices were published on 22/11/2020 (Reference 2020-280321) and are available to 
view on https://irl.eu-supply.com/ctm/Supplier/PublicTenders/ViewNotice/238392  

Included in each CAN is a justification for the use of the Negotiated Procedure without prior 
publication  for  that  contract.  The  MA  is  satisfied  that  the  justification  set  out  in  the  CAN 
fulfils the requirements of Article 32(2)(c). 

Q.3 Have you already completed the transition to e-procurement processes?  

No reply.  

Q.4 Have you taken any measures to further strengthen transparency in the use of EU 
funds, in particular in relation to emergency procurement?  

☒YES 

If yes, could you specify which ones and how they strengthen the existing transparency 
framework? 

Southern  Regional  Assembly  (SRA)  &  Northern,  Western  Regional  Assembly  (NWRA)  (MA 
SEROP/BMWROP):  Continued  use  of  detailed  Art  125  Management  Verifications  & 
enhancement of Checklists used.   

Q.5 Have you ensured that the reporting of irregularities, in particular non-fraudulent, 
for the 2014-2020 programming period is closely monitored? 

☒YES, partly implementing the recommendation 

If you implemented partially the recommendation, could you explain why you think that 
it was a partial implementation and why a full implementation was not possible? Which 
was the outcome of these new procedures? 

Southern  Regional  Assembly  (SRA)  &  Northern,  Western  Regional  Assembly  (NWRA)  (MA 
SEROP/BMWROP)  –  Continued  use  of  the  IMS  system.  Further  training  for  MA  staff  is 
required. 

1.16.  Italy 

Q.1. Have you ensured that verification and monitoring measures are kept at a high level? 

☒YES, fully implementing the recommendation 

70 

 
 
If  you  implemented  fully  the  recommendation,  could  you  indicate  how  this  was 
achieved?  Can  you  share  any  specific  finding  in  relation  to  such  measures?  Have 
detections increased, decreased or remained stable overall? 

The  emergency  caused  by  COVID-19  does  not  change or alter any  regulatory  or statutory 
requirement.  

In  particular,  at  national  level,  to  ensure  the  verification  and  monitoring  of  the  operations, 
the  Agency  for  Territorial  Cohesion,  has  updated  the  first-level  control  Manuals  of  both 
programs  providing  for  the  telematic  mode  of  carrying  out  on-the-spot  checks  or  remotely 
with  the  examination  of  relevant  documentary  evidence  suitable  to  ascertain  the  material 
progress of the operation.  

Q.2  Have  you  ensured  that  emergency  procurement  is  used  on  the  basis  of  a  case-by-
case assessment? 

☒YES, fully implementing the recommendation 

If you implemented fully the recommendation, could you indicate which procedures you 
have put in place to achieve that?  

Italy’s  “DECRETO  CURA  ITALIA”  (Decree  Law  no.  18  of  17  March  2020)  concerning 
measures  to  strengthen  the  National  Health  Service  and  the  economic  support  of  families, 
workers  and  businesses  related  to  the  COVID-19  epidemiological  emergency  (Decree  Law 
no. 18/2020), does not provide for any derogation from the application of the ordinary open 
public procedures. 

However,  the  “Cura  Italia  Decree”  has  identified,  for  the  emergency  period,  specific  and 
limited  derogations  from  the  ordinary  procedures  provided  for  by  the  Public  Procurement 
Code. 

In particular, provision has been made for the use of derogatory procedures for the purchase 
of specific categories of goods and services.  

Q.3 Have you already completed the transition to e-procurement processes?  

☒YES, fully implementing the recommendation 

Q.4 Have you taken any measures to further strengthen transparency in the use of EU 
funds, in particular in relation to emergency procurement?  

☒YES 

If yes, could you specify which ones and how they strengthen the existing transparency 
framework? 

The state of emergency doesn’t affect  the applicable compliance  requirements  in  the use of 
EU  funds.  The  first  level  controls  continue  to  ensure  transparency  and  regularity  of  the 
procurements procedures.  

71 

 
 
Q.5 Have you ensured that the reporting of irregularities, in particular non-fraudulent, 
for the 2014-2020 programming period is closely monitored? 

☒YES, fully implementing the recommendation 

If you implemented fully the recommendation, could you indicate which procedures you 
have put in place? Which was the outcome of these new procedures? 

In Italy, the Agency for Territorial Cohesion has, among others, monitoring functions on the 
use  of  funds  and  also  supervisory  tasks  regarding  the  implementation  of  programmes  and 
projects co-financed by the EU. 

1.17.  Latvia 

Q.1.  Have  you  ensured  that  verification  and  monitoring  measures  are  kept  at  a  high 
level?  

☒YES, fully implementing the recommendation (Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Support 
Service,  responsible  for  EMFF,  EAFRD,  EAGF;  Central  Finance  and  Contracting  Agency, 
responsible for ESF, ERDF and Cohesion Fund) 

If  you  implemented  fully  the  recommendation,  could  you  indicate  how  this  was 
achieved?  Can  you  share  any  specific  finding  in  relation  to  such  measures?  Have 
detections increased, decreased or remained stable overall? 

Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Support Service - responsible for EMFF, EAFRD, EAGF: 

The  recommendation  has  been  fully  implemented.  The  Rural  Support  Service  (RSS)  has  not 
reduced the inspection and monitoring measures during the COVID-19 crisis. Those still are 
maintained at high level and a number of findings of non-compliance remains stable (in 2020, 
compared  to  2019,  the  amount  and  number  of  debtors  has  increased  within  the  European 
Maritime and Fisheries Fund (EMFF), the amount has increased, but the number of debtors 
has  decreased  within  the  European  agricultural  fund  for  rural  development  2014-2020 
(EAFRD),  the  amount  and  number  of  debtors  has  slightly  decreased  within  the  European 
agricultural guarantee fund 2014-2020(EAGF)). 

With regard to area payments, a number of  control tools were introduced and developed in 
order  to  make  on-the-spot  checks  more  efficient:  the  app  for  inspectors  (allowing  the 
inspector  during  inspections  to  draw  up  the  results  of  inspection  more  accurately  and 
quickly), the use of drones (allowing inspections to be carried out faster and more efficiently); 
the use of satellite Sentinel images (allowing to establish whether the conditions for receiving 
the  public  support  are  met  and  to  carry  out  targeted  checks  in  cases  where  there  is  a 
suspicion of non-compliance). 

Regarding  the  investment  projects,  in  order  to  gain  confidence  for  the  compliance  of  the 
investments, the RSS performed remote inspections, incl. the use of application developed by 
the  RSS  for  information  exchange  -  receiving  investment  photos  with  geolocation  (with  a 
specific  location)  from  the  client,  as  well  as,  if  necessary,  the  RSS  performed  remote  video 
checks using the Zoom platform. 

Central Finance and Contracting Agency - responsible for ESF, ERDF and Cohesion Fund: 

72 

 
 
The  procurements  performed  are  assessed  both  regarding  procedures  and  execution  of 
procurement  agreements  –  analysing  the  requirements  and  any  other  aspects  that  might 
highlight  breach  of  procurement  regulations  or  red  flags  indicating  fraud,  especially  if 
negotiation procedures or urgency elements are involved. Additionally extra attention is paid 
to  cases  involving  force  majeure  on  basis  of  COVID-19  as  justification  for  extension  of 
deadlines  –  each  justification  has  to  be  objectively  substantiated  to  avoid  misapplication. 
Taking into account the extensive control mechanisms available and applied, there has been 
no increase in procurement breach cases that could be attributed to the situation of COVID-
19 emergency. 

Q.2  Have  you  ensured  that  emergency  procurement  is  used  on  the  basis  of  a  case-by-
case assessment?  

☒YES, fully implementing the recommendation 

If you implemented fully the recommendation, could you indicate which procedures you 
have put in place to achieve that?  

According to the Public Procurement Law emergency procurement is used on the basis of a 
case-by-case assessment (contracting authorities are responsible for justification of the use of 
the negotiated procedure). 

Q.3 Have you already completed the transition to e-procurement processes?  

☒YES, fully implementing the recommendation 

Q.4 Have you taken any measures to further strengthen transparency in the use of EU 
funds, in particular in relation to emergency procurement?  

☒YES 

If yes, could you specify which ones and how they strengthen the existing transparency 
framework? 

The  Procurement  Monitoring  bureau  ensures  sample-based  ex-ante  checks  of  procurement 
procedures within EU funded projects. The Administrative Penalties department of the bureau 
carries out sample-based examinations to verify the justification of emergency procurements. 
Furthermore,  guidelines  on  transparency  in  public  procurement  have  been  worked  out,  as 
well  as  several  guidelines  on  emergency  procurements  emphasizing  the  importance  of 
transparency and efficient use of financial resources. 

Corruption Prevention and Combating Bureau, in cooperation with the State Audit Office and 
Procurement Monitoring Bureau: 

Developed  and  published  anti-corruption  suggestions  for  maintaining  principles  of  good 
governance  and  the  application  of  the  alleviated  procurement  procedure  for  emergency 
procurements  directed  at  the  fight  against  the  spread  of  COVID-19.  To  enhance  the 
transparency  of  procurements,  a  special  online  platform  was  developed  where  all  the 
procurements carried out under the emergency procurements were published. 

73 

 
 
Q.5 Have you ensured that the reporting of irregularities, in particular non-fraudulent, 
for the 2014-2020 programming period is closely monitored? 

☒YES, fully implementing the recommendation (Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Support 
Service - responsible for EMFF, EAFRD, EAGF); (Ministry of Finance and Central Finance 
and Contracting Agency - responsible for ESF, ERDF and Cohesion Fund). 

If you implemented fully the recommendation, could you indicate which procedures you 
have put in place? Which was the outcome of these new procedures? 

Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Support Service - responsible for EMFF, EAFRD, EAGF: 

The  recommendation  has  been  fully  implemented.  The  irregularities  in  the  Funds 
administered  by  the  RSS  are  being  monitored  and  no  significant  reduction  in  the 
irregularities  has  been  identified  (in  2020,  compared  to  2019,  the  amount  and  number  of 
debtors  have  increased  within  the  EMFF,  the  amount  has  increased,  but  the  number  of 
debtors  has  decreased  within  the  EAFRD,  the  amount  and  number  of  debtors  has  slightly 
decreased within the EAGF). 

The RSS regularly reviews and improves the process of reporting the irregularities, incl. the 
revision of fraud risks related to COVID-19. 

Central Finance and Contracting Agency - responsible for ESF, ERDF and Cohesion Fund: 

A detailed irregularity detection, correction and reporting system is in place and is strongly 
adhered to. This includes both national legislation, guidelines and internal enactments of the 
cooperation institution in order to adequately evaluate each irregularity, adopt the respective 
decision as well as register and report the irregularities as stipulated by the relevant EU and 
national legislation. 

Ministry of Finance as the Managing Authority for ESF, ERDF and Cohesion Fund: 

According  to  the  Managing  Authority  of  Latvia  (hereinafter  –  MA)  “Guidelines  for  the 
application of financial corrections, reporting of irregularities detected in the implementation 
of European Union funds, recovery of ineligible expenditure in the 2014-2020 programming 
period”  the  MA  responsible  persons  within  3  days  after  deadline  mentioned  in  guidelines 
check  data  quality  of  irregularities  reported  by  the  Irregularity  Management  System 
(hereinafter – IMS). The MA responsible persons make sure that the data is complete, entered 
within the prescribed deadline and in accordance with the requirements.  

MA has established internal procedure to ensure the management of irregularities. According 
to that, the MA every quarter checks data quality of all irregularities and monitor reporting of 
new  cases  and  follow  up  reports.  Every  quarter  the  MA  exports  from  IMS  opened 
irregularities  and  checks  whether  is  it  necessary  to  update  information  and  forward  this 
information  to  the  EU  Fund  Cooperation  Institution  (Central  Finance  and  Contracting 
Agency).  If  there  is  no  necessity  to  make  any  amendments  into  data,  the  MA  inform  the 
Cooperation Institution about data harmonization. 

74 

 
 
1.18.  Lithuania 

Q.1.  Have  you  ensured  that  verification  and  monitoring  measures  are  kept  at  a  high 
level? 

☒YES, fully implementing the recommendation 

The  public  procurement  inspections  questionnaires  were  adjusted  taking  into  account 
changes  made  in  the  Public  Procurement  Law  and  the  accompanying  by-laws  in  order  to 
ensure the implementation of the EU regulations. 

Q.2  Have  you  ensured  that  emergency  procurement  is  used  on  the  basis  of  a  case-by-
case assessment? 

☒YES, fully implementing the recommendation 

Emergency purchases have separate requirements. 

Q.3 Have you already completed the transition to e-procurement processes?  

☒YES, partly implementing the recommendation 

All  the  published  procurements  shall  be  carried  out  through  the  Central  Procurement 
Information System. So far, some of the unpublished low-value purchases are non-electronic. 

Q.4 Have you taken any measures to further strengthen transparency in the use of EU 
funds, in particular in relation to emergency procurement?  

☒YES 

Procurements  are  announced  publicly.  The  offers  of  the  winning  suppliers  and  contracts 
concluded  are  being  announced  publicly  too.  Therefore,  the  transparency  is  monitored 
regularly. 

Any person  who suspects  that EU funding is  spent  wrongly may inform on-line the relevant 
authorities using esinvesticijos.lt section “Pranešk apie korupciją”. This message may be sent 
anonymously, if needed. Also lack of transparency in public procurement may be reported to 
the Public Procurement Office. 

Q.5 Have you ensured that the reporting of irregularities, in particular non-fraudulent, 
for the 2014-2020 programming period is closely monitored? 

☒YES, fully implementing the recommendation 

The following monitoring measures have been put in place: risk analysis, on-the-spot-checks, 
cooperation with law enforcement authorities, monitoring of risky projects. 

Information  on  irregularities  and  related  data  is  constantly  monitored  in  the  2014-2020 
European  Union  Structural  Funds  Management  and  Monitoring  System  (hereinafter  - 
SFMIS2014),  which  is  the  main  source  of  information  for  reporting  irregularities  to  the 
Commission. The preparation and submission of irregularity reports is described in detail in 

75 

 
 
the Manual of Procedures. So far, however, monitoring has been done manually reviewing all 
relevant information. 

SFMIS2014 has been updated in 2020, including the part of irregularities. SFMIS2014 new 
functions were analysed and tested in August-December 2020 and realized in January 2021: 

 

 

 

 

if  there  are  recoveries  related  to  the  irregularity,  the  information  of  them  is 
automatically updated in the financial information of the irregularity; 

changes in the Payment Module of SFMIS2014 are automatically checked once a 
day and financial information of the irregularity is updated according to payment 
requests with the status "Paid" and from which the non-eligible costs related to the 
irregularity have been deducted (confirmed and paid amount); 

the  possibility  to  see  all  versions  of  the  irregularity  in  real  time  (new  /  updated 
irregularity  decisions)  and  changes  in  information  during  the  implementation  of 
the irregularity decision that took place during the quarter; 

the possibility to indicate in the system which irregularities has been reported to 
the Commission; relevant search filters have been created. 

In 2021, an irregularity analysis tool will be developed and implemented in the SFMIS2014. 

1.19.  Luxembourg 

Q.1.  Have  you  ensured  that  verification  and  monitoring  measures  are  kept  at  a  high 
level? 

☒YES, fully implementing the recommendation 

FEDER  has  fully  implemented  the  recommendation.  FSE,  PGD,  AMIF,  FEAGA  and  FEAD 
did not make use of emergency procurement. FSE points out the emergency procurement was 
not used due to the high degree of implementation of the program.  

Q.2  Have  you  ensured  that  emergency  procurement  is  used  on  the  basis  of  a  case-by-
case assessment? 

☒YES, fully implementing the recommendation 

Please refer to the previous question regarding implementation of the recommendation. The 
majority of stakeholders did not use the emergency procedure at all.  

Q.3 Have you already completed the transition to e-procurement processes?  

☒YES, fully implementing the recommendation 

The  stakeholders  FEDER  and  PGD  have  fully  implemented  the  recommendation.  The 
stakeholders  FSE,  AMIF,  FEAGA  and  FEAD  did  not  make  use  of  the  emergency 
procurement.  

76 

 
 
Q.4 Have you taken any measures to further strengthen transparency in the use of EU 
funds, in particular in relation to emergency procurement? 

☒YES 

PGD  projects  are  published  on  the  Police  website  as  well  as  on the  common  LU  EU-funds 
website.  FSE  has  not  used  the  emergency  procurement  due  to  the  high  degree  of 
implementation  of  the  program.  The  rest  of  the  stakeholders  have  not  used  the  emergency 
procedure  either.  FEDER  points  out  that  the  current  regulations  and  procedures  are 
sufficient, hence, no further action was necessary. 

Q.5 Have you ensured that the reporting of irregularities, in particular non-fraudulent, 
for the 2014-2020 programming period is closely monitored? 

☒YES, fully implementing the recommendation  

FSE  fully  implemented  the  recommendation.  The  ongoing  system  ensuring  a  100%  ex-ante 
control is maintained. As for FEAGA/FEADER, there was only one reporting of irregularities 
during the 2014-2020 programming period (suspected fraud) that was closely monitored it. 

PGD  was  not  able  to  send  the  report  of  irregularities  via  www.afis.olaf.europa.eu,  due  to 
technical  issues.  These  have  been  reported  several  times  to  the  Commission,  but  remain 
unsolved. Notwithstanding the above, PGD did  not  have any irregularities to  report for  the 
period 2014-2020. 

The  FEAD  Fund  was  summed  up  over  the  entire  period  in  a  single  operation,  which  was 
reproduced annually according to the same patterns. Furthermore, AMIF and FEDER did not 
have any regularities to report during the 2014-2020 programming period. 

1.20.  Malta 

Q.1.  Have  you  ensured  that  verification  and  monitoring  measures  are  kept  at  a  high 
level?  

☒YES, partly implementing the recommendation  

If you implemented partially the recommendation, could you explain why you think that 
it was a partial implementation and why a full implementation was not possible?  

The  Department  of  Contracts,  irrespective  of  the  COVID-19  crisis,  has  always  (and  will 
continue to do so) endeavoured to ensure that public funds (both local and EU) are closely 
monitored in order to get a high level of protection. The current Modus Operandi in relation 
to  any  emergency  spending  which  is  above  local  threshold  (i.e.  above  €139,000  excl.  VAT) 
requires to be validated through the presentation of applicable documentation to justify and 
substantiate  their  claim  for  utilising  procurement  methods  which  have  less  restrictive 
parameters.  In  addition,  if  the  Estimated  Procurement  Value  is  above  €1  million,  the 
concerned Contracting Authority shall attain budget clearance from the Ministry for Finance 
and Employment.  

Further  to  the  above,  as  and  where  applicable,  the  Managing  and  Auditing  bodies  conduct 
verification exercises to ascertain that public funds are properly managed.  

77 

 
 
Q.2  Have  you  ensured  that  emergency  procurement  is  used  on  the  basis  of  a  case-by-
case assessment?  

☒YES, fully implementing the recommendation  

If you implemented fully the recommendation, could you indicate which procedures you 
have put in place to achieve that?  

All  emergency  spending  is  used  on  a  case-by-case  basis.  In  fact,  in  line  with  the  reply  to 
question 1 above, a Contracting Authority must present its duly justified case to the competent 
authority  who  in  turn  shall  concede  (or  not)  to  the  request,  based  on  the  explanations 
provided and documentation submitted.  

Q.3 Have you already completed the transition to e-procurement processes?  

☒YES, fully implementing the recommendation  

Q.4 Have you taken any measures to further strengthen transparency in the use of EU 
funds, in particular in relation to emergency procurement?  

☒NO  

If not, could you explain why and how your current system already ensures an adequate 
level of transparency?  

The  majority  of  procurement  (works/services/supplies)  utilising  public  funds  (including  EU 
funds) is conducted through standard procurement procedures, wherein an open call tends to 
be the default procedure utilised in Malta; thus, is evident that the process is transparent.  

With specific regard to Emergency Spending, as already highlighted in question 1 above, the 
Department of Contracts, irrespective of the COVID-19 crisis, adopts a justification method 
to assess the validity of any such requests.  

In May 2017, the Department of Contracts issued a document titled ‘Addressing Fraud and 
Corruption  in  Public  Procurement’.  The  scope  of  this  report  was  to  highlight  the  various 
measures  being  adopted  by  the  Department  of  Contracts  to  combat  fraudulent  activities  in 
public  procurement  in  order  to  further  enhance  good  governance,  transparency  and  public 
accountability. Additionally, as part of the training modules delivered by this department to 
all Contracting Authorities, a specific session on fraud and corruption is delivered.  

Q.5 Have you ensured that the reporting of irregularities, in particular non-fraudulent, 
for the 2014-2020 programming period is closely monitored?  

☒YES, fully implementing the recommendation  

If you implemented fully the recommendation, could you indicate which procedures you 
have put in place? Which was the outcome of these new procedures?  

The  Planning  and  Priorities  Co-ordination  Division  (PPCD),  as  the  Managing  Authority 
(MA) of the Cohesion Funds, has a system in place whereby the administrative verifications 
cover 100% of the expenditure items included in applications for payment by the beneficiaries 

78 

 
 
to  the  MA  and  subsequently  accepted  by  the  MA  and  forwarded  to  the  Certifying  Authority 
(CA) for subsequent inclusion in a reimbursement request to the Commission.  

Where  the  number  of  transactions  included  in  a  payment  claim  by  a  beneficiary  are 
voluminous,  the  MA  undertakes  a  sample  check  of  the  transactions  included  in  a  payment 
claim based on a pre-established and internally agreed methodology.  

Furthermore, in order to ensure compliance with the principle of separation of functions, the 
Financial Control Unit (FCU) within the MA undertakes internal controls on the verifications 
carried out by the staff responsible for the implementation, before the payment application is 
submitted to the CA. Subsequently, FCU also ensures that the implementing staff undertakes 
to  provide  clarifications  and  to  follow-up  any  recommended  corrective  measures  as  agreed 
during the management verifications.  

With  regard  to  the  detection  and  reporting  of  Irregularity  Reports  (IRs),  it  should  also  be 
noted that when an irregularity is detected by a public sector beneficiary, the report is sent to 
the  Director  (Policy  Development  and  Programme  Implementation)  of  the  relevant  Line 
Ministry,  who  counter-signs  the  report  and  forwards  it  immediately  to  the  MA,  copying  the 
Audit Authority (AA) and the CA.  

It  should  be  noted  that  during  this  programming  period  the  MA  is  using  Simplified  Cost 
Options  (SCOs)  in  the  area,  which  was  prone  to  administrative  error.  This  in  itself  has 
reduced the number of reported irregularities. 

1.21.  Netherlands 

Q.1.  Have  you  ensured  that  verification  and  monitoring  measures  are  kept  at  a  high 
level? 

☒YES, fully implementing the recommendation 

If  you  implemented  fully  the  recommendation,  could  you  indicate  how  this  was 
achieved?  Can  you  share  any  specific  finding  in  relation  to  such  measures?  Have 
detections increased, decreased or remained stable overall? 

The verification and monitoring measures in the policies are kept on a high level.  

Q.2  Have  you  ensured  that  emergency  procurement  is  used  on  the  basis  of  a  case-by-
case assessment? 

☒YES, fully implementing the recommendation 

We had no emergency procurements.  

Q.3 Have you already completed the transition to e-procurement processes?  

☒YES, partly implementing the recommendation 

If partially or not, could you briefly explain at which point you are in the process? 

79 

 
 
Not  every fund  is  yet  completly digital, but  efforts  are made to  ensure digital  processes are 
utilized to the fullest. 

Q.4 Have you taken any measures to further strengthen transparency in the use of EU 
funds, in particular in relation to emergency procurement?  

☒NO 

If not, could you explain why and how your current system already ensures an adequate 
level of transparency? 

We have maintained the same level  of  transparency in  the use of  the funds EÀFRD, EAGF, 
AMIF, ISF. But we have had no emergency procurement in these specific funds.  

Q.5 Have you ensured that the reporting of irregularities, in particular non-fraudulent, 
for the 2014-2020 programming period is closely monitored? 

☒YES, partly implementing the recommendation 

If you implemented partially the recommendation, could you explain why you think that 
it was a partial implementation and why a full implementation was not possible? Which 
was the outcome of these new procedures? 

The existing procedures for EÀFRD and EAGF have been functioning for years and we have 
maintained these procedures on the same level.  

Our  input  concerning  the  non-fiscal  data  has  increased  in  the  last  years.  We  are  still 
improving our input concerning these non-fiscal data.  Due to the amount of findings and the 
different national and EU IT systems not all the findings are reported yet. We also notice that 
interoperability  can  be  very  helpful  to  improve  the  input  given  by  a  memberstate.  The 
outcome of the new procedures are obvious, more data are being shared but not yet all. 

1.22.  Poland 

Q.1.  Have  you  ensured  that  verification  and  monitoring  measures  are  kept  at  a  high 
level? 

☒YES, fully implementing the recommendation 

If  you  implemented  fully  the  recommendation,  could  you  indicate  how  this  was 
achieved?  Can  you  share  any  specific  finding  in  relation  to  such  measures?  Have 
detections increased, decreased or remained stable overall? 

In the context of the COVID-19 pandemic, Poland has put in place a number of mechanisms 
to ensure that the spending of, accounting for and control of EU funds continue to be properly 
monitored. The basis for this was the Act of 3 April 2020 on special arrangements to support 
the  implementation  of  operational  programmes  following  the  COVID-19  outbreak  (the 
‘Special Fund Act’). As the pandemic progressed, the Act was amended to extend its validity 
until the end of 2023.  

80 

 
 
The Act contains a basic package of arrangements making it easier to implement and account 
for  projects  co-financed  out  of  EU  funds.  The  options  available  include:  extending  the 
deadlines  for  submitting  applications  for  funding  in  individual  competitions;  conducting 
extraordinary  calls  for  projects;  extending  time  limits  in  administrative  procedures  or 
suspending  them  and  ceasing  to  carry  out  administrative  decisions  relating  to  the 
implementation  of  projects;  suspending  application  of  the  guidelines  issued  by  the  Minister 
for Regional Development; the possibility of  discontinuing  checks and audits in  exceptional 
situations or, where feasible, performing them remotely or electronically. 

Application  of  some  of  the  Guidelines  for  the  control  of  the  implementation  of  operational 
programmes  for  2014-2020  has  been  suspended.  As  a  result,  the  control  work,  including 
system  audits  and  project  expenditure  checks,  is  being  carried  out  efficiently  despite  the 
constraints arising from the epidemic. 

By availing themselves of the arrangements now permitted, the Managing Authorities usually 
carry out on-the-spot checks remotely, on the basis of the documentation provided/available, 
and then they plan (once the health risk is over) to carry out monitoring visits at project sites 
to corroborate the verifications carried out earlier. 

Furthermore,  the  Public  Procurement  Law  Act  of  11  September  2019,  which  entered  into 
Polish  law  on  1  January  2021,  strengthens  the  control  mechanisms  and  measures  for 
monitoring public procurement; one of the ways it does this is by requiring the control bodies 
(including  all  the  Managing  Authorities  and  Audit  Authorities)  to  publish  their  audit 
questionnaires  and  the  final  audit  findings  on  their  websites.  Under  the  principle  of 
cooperation  by  which  the  control  bodies  are  bound,  they  are  required  in  particular  to  take 
account  of  the  results  of  checks  previously  performed  by  other  bodies  and  to  share 
information on the checks carried out on contracts and the results thereof. 

The verification mechanisms also function properly in the area of the agricultural funds; by 
way  of  example,  an  ‘unqualified’  opinion  was  issued  in  February  2020  on  the  basis  of  the 
independent Certifying Body’s examination of the Paying Agency’s annual accounts relating 
to the EAGF and EAFRD for the financial year 2019. The Certifying Body concluded in this 
opinion that:  

 

 

 

the accounts transmitted to the Commission for the 2019 EAGF and EAFRD financial 
year ended 15 October 2019 are true, complete and accurate in all material respects 
as regards the total net expenditure charged to the EAGF and the EAFRD; 

the  internal  control  procedures  applied  by  the  Paying  Agency  have  operated 
satisfactorily as regards both the EAGF and the EAFRD; 

the expenditure for which reimbursement has been requested from the Commission is 
legal and regular in all material respects for both the EAGF and the EAFRD. 

Q.2  Have  you  ensured  that  emergency  procurement  is  used  on  the  basis  of  a  case-by-
case assessment? 

☒YES, fully implementing the recommendation 

If you implemented fully the recommendation, could you indicate which procedures you 
have put in place to achieve that?  

81 

 
 
Under Polish public procurement law, i.e. the Public Procurement Law Act of 11 September 
2019, and the principle of competitive tendering laid down in the Guidelines on the eligibility 
of expenditure under the ERDF, ESF and Cohesion Fund for 2014-2020 for contracts below 
the thresholds laid down in the above-mentioned Act and contracting authorities not bound to 
apply the Act, contracting authorities in EU projects are required to use public procurement 
procedures in emergency situations on the basis of a case-by-case assessment in accordance 
with Directive 2014/24/EU. The President of the Public Procurement Office (PPO) and both 
the Audit Authority and the Coordinating Authority recommend the case-by-case approach as 
the  standard  manner  for  contracting  authorities  to  award  contracts  under  all  operational 
programmes.  Managing  Authorities,  Intermediate  Bodies,  Implementing  Bodies  and  other 
authorised  control  bodies  verify  whether  the  procurement  procedure  has  been  carried  out 
correctly  in  accordance  with  this  principle.  The  PPO  has  published  instructions  on  how  to 
apply  the  extraordinary  arrangements,  and  the  Coordinating  Authority  has  further 
disseminated  these  instructions  via  the  Managing  Authorities,  also  in  the  context  of  the 
principle of competitive tendering that applies below the thresholds laid down in the Public 
Procurement Law Act. 

Under  the  various  aid  mechanisms  in  the  agricultural  sector  implemented  by  the  Paying 
Agency in respect of the beneficiaries who are required to apply the public procurement rules, 
the costs incurred by the beneficiaries are also verified on the basis of the above-mentioned 
Public  Procurement  Law  Act  in  cases  where  those  rules  are  applicable.  In  every  case,  an 
assessment is made of the value, type and size of the contract, and correct application of the 
relevant rules is verified. 

Q.3 Have you already completed the transition to e-procurement processes?  

☒YES, partly implementing the recommendation 

If partially or not, could you briefly explain at which point you are in the process? 

On 1 January 2021, the new Public Procurement Law Act of 11 September 2019 entered into 
force. This Act introduces a number of amendments and new legal arrangements that affect 
the whole public procurement process (from the planning of the procedure itself, conducting 
the  procedure  and  awarding  the  public  contract  to  the  final  stage  of  implementing  and 
evaluating the contract). Under the Act, the procurement process will be fully electronic.  

E-procurement  is  a  key  driver  for  improving  the  efficiency  and  transparency  of  public 
procurement  and  for  allowing  small  and  medium-sized  businesses  greater  access  to  public 
procurement. As a result of this move to a fully electronic public procurement process, Polish 
law  now  requires  contracting  authorities  to  make  the  procurement  documents  available  in 
electronic form and to communicate with contractors electronically. By making it mandatory 
for  the  contracting  authorities  to  accept  documents  submitted  electronically,  the  cost  to 
contractors of participating in a procedure is reduced. Moreover, electronisation reduces the 
costs of procedures for the contracting authorities as they do not need to store large numbers 
of paper documents. 

The competent national institutions, i.e. the Public Procurement Office in partnership with the 
Ministry of Digitisation, are carrying out an e-Procurement Project which includes building 
an  e-Procurement  Platform.  The  e-services  put  in  place  under  the  e-Project  will  make  it 
easier  and  less  time-consuming  to  carry  out  activities  under  the  public  procurement 
procedure  in  accordance  with  the  above-mentioned  Act.  Electronic  communication  and 

82 

 
 
information-sharing services will be made available by the parties to the procedure on the e-
Procurement Platform at all stages of the public procurement procedure.  

The  construction  of  the  e-Procurement  Platform  will  proceed  according  to  the  agreed 
timetable  and  the  contract  concluded  with  the  successful  contractor.  The  work  has  been 
divided  into  six  phases  during  which  the  different  modules  and  components  will  be  made 
available.  Under  Stage  I,  the  following  were  received:  the  preliminary  technical  design 
(architectural  design  paper)  and  the  preliminary  design  of  the  e-Procurement  Platform 
Access Portal. Under Stage II, the Platform Access Portal was implemented, and the Identity 
Module  and  the  Application  Processing  System  were  introduced.  As  part  of  this  phase,  a 
module  allowing  the  registration  of  users  was  put  into  production.  At  the  same  time,  an 
educational  component  was  put  at  the  users’  disposal  containing  interactive  instructions 
describing  the  available  functionalities  of  the  system  as  well  as  the  application  processing 
system (SOZ). The platform is available at: https://ezamowienia.gov.pl/pl/. 

The following Stage III.1 elements of the Platform have gradually been implemented since 1 
January 2021: the ‘Notices’ Module, together with the Public Procurement Bulletin and the 
Procedural Plan, which includes forms for national notices and a procedural plan form, and 
the ‘Procedures’ Module with the registration form for  the preliminary data  procedure and 
the form to be sent to the President of the PPO with information on applications and tenders 
submitted  in  procedures  conducted  by  contracting  authorities.  Implementation  of  the  next 
Platform  module,  i.e.  the  ‘Handling  of  Electronic  Communications’  Module,  including  the 
submission of tenders and applications, is scheduled for the first quarter of 2021. According 
to  the  project  implementation  timetable,  the  ‘Handling  of  EU  Procedures’  Module  (i.e.  e-
Sender, the Developer’s Portal and the API (application programming interfaces) Manager) 
is due to become available in the fourth quarter of 2021, and the ‘Monitoring and Analysis’ 
Module including the Annual Report is to become available in the first quarter of 2022. Final 
acceptance of the e-Procurement Platform is planned for the third quarter of 2022. 

Q.4 Have you taken any measures to further strengthen transparency in the use of EU 
funds, in particular in relation to emergency procurement?  

☒YES 

If yes, could you specify which ones and how they strengthen the existing transparency 
framework? 

The  procurement  procedures  in  force  under  Polish  public  procurement  law,  including  the 
case-by-case  approach,  are  fully  in  line  with  Directive  2014/24/EU.  In  the  absence  of  any 
specific  arrangements  at  EU  level  for  emergency  COVID-19-related  procurement,  Polish 
legislation  does  not  impose  additional  requirements  on  contracting  authorities  over  and 
above  the  procedures  and  methods  set  out  in  the  Act  and  in  Directive  2014/24/EU  (thus 
avoiding ‘gold-plating’). Contracting authorities are required to apply the arrangements laid 
down in  public procurement  law by taking a case-by-case approach. The same approach is 
applied  under  the  principle  of  competitive  tendering  laid  down  in  the  Guidelines  on  the 
eligibility  of  expenditure  under  the  ERDF,  ESF  and  Cohesion  Fund  for  2014-2020  for 
contracts  below  the  thresholds  laid  down  in  the  above-mentioned  Act  and  for  contracting 
authorities not obliged to apply the Act. 

The  rules  in  force  in  the  Paying  Agency  with  regard  to  the  agricultural  funds  also  ensure 
transparency in the use of EU funds. All the costs incurred by beneficiaries are verified for 

83 

 
 
compliance with public procurement rules. The Agency is continuously taking steps to make 
the use of funds more transparent, amongst other things by putting into practice the guidance 
and recommendations of both the national and the EU audit and control services, and by self-
monitoring.  The above actions relate to  the whole range of  EU financial support, including 
public procurement. 

Q.5 Have you ensured that the reporting of irregularities, in particular non-fraudulent, 
for the 2014-2020 programming period is closely monitored? 

☒YES, fully implementing the recommendation 

If you implemented fully the recommendation, could you indicate which procedures you 
have put in place? Which was the outcome of these new procedures? 

Poland duly complies with its obligations to report any irregularities found in respect of EU 
funds to the European Commission and to monitor them on a continuous basis. The rules for 
this  process  are  governed  by  the  national  procedure  drawn  up  on  the  basis  of  the  relevant 
sectoral  regulations  and  issued  by  the  Government  Commissioner  for  Combating  Fraud 
against  Poland  or  the  EU  (responsible  in  Poland  for  organising  the  process  of  reporting 
irregularities to the Commission). The procedure is the main document setting out the rules 
for  carrying  out  the  obligation  to  report  irregularities  to  the  Commission  for  all  EU  funds 
implemented under shared management by the competent national authorities.  

The authorities at the level of each operational programme draw up appropriate procedures 
concerning  the  obligation  to  notify  the  Commission,  including  implementing  instructions, 
taking  into  account  the  provisions  set  out  in  the  above-mentioned  document.  Therefore,  the 
system in Poland for reporting irregularities and fraud (including cases of suspected fraud) is 
uniform  and  robust.  In  addition,  the  reporting  mechanism  in  the  Irregularity  Management 
System  (IMS)  is  supplemented  by  the  SL2014  ICT  system’s  ‘Register  of  Charges  on  the 
Project’  module,  where  authorities  record  and  monitor  both  reportable  and  non-reportable 
irregularities. The register contains information on both the irregularities themselves and the 
related corrections of expenditure. 

In the agricultural sector too, the Paying Agency has dedicated databases making it possible 
to  record  information  on  irregularities  detected,  update  them  and  monitor  cases  of 
irregularities  in  the  context  of  complying  with  the  obligation  to  report  irregularities  to  the 
Commission. The tasks relating to the monitoring of cases of reportable irregularities include 
control  and analytical tasks aimed at  ensuring that  the data  sent  in  the irregularity reports 
are consistent, complete and reliable. Under the organisational arrangements put in place by 
the  Agency,  there  is  a  unit  which  carries  out  the  process  of  reporting  irregularities  to  the 
European  Commission  and  also  coordinates  and  supervises  the  process  of  examining 
information on irregularities. These procedural and organisational arrangements have been 
in place at the Agency since 2009 and have been updated on the basis of the above-mentioned 
document of the Government Commissioner.  

The procedural and organisational arrangements put in place by the Agency ensure that the 
reporting of irregularities (including non-fraud cases) is closely monitored and also relates to 
the 2014-2020 programming period.  

Compliance  with  the  obligation  to  report  to  the Commission  any  irregularities  found  in  the 
use of EU funds under shared management was also the subject of a system audit performed 

84 

 
 
by  the  Audit  Authority  in  2020.  As  part  of  scrutinising  the  transmission  of  information  on 
irregularities  to  the  Commission,  two  aspects  of  the  management  and  control  system  at  the 
competent authorities were checked and assessed: 

1. 

the timeliness of the reporting of irregularities to the Commission: 

-  whether 

the  audited  body’s  procedures  contain  provisions  governing 
compliance  with  the  obligation  to  report  irregularities,  are  in  line  with  the 
Government  Commissioner’s  procedure  and  ensure  that  the  obligation  to 
report irregularities is properly fulfilled; 

-  whether  the  procedures  specify  the  category  or  type  of  documents  that  may 
serve  as  a  primary  administrative  or  judicial  finding  (PACA)  necessary  to 
establish an irregularity; 

-  whether  the  procedure  specifies  the  periods/time  limits  within  which  the 

irregularity found should be reported to the Commission; 

-  whether the reporting of irregularities to the Commission is carried out within 

the time limits laid down in the rules; 

2. 

eligibility of irregularities found not to be notifiable to the Commission: 

-  whether the procedures of the audited body set out detailed rules on the basis 
of which it is verified that the irregularity found does not actually qualify for 
notification to the Commission; 

-  whether the procedures prevent artificial splitting of irregularities in order to 

avoid the obligation to send a notification to the Commission; 

-  whether there are rules ensuring the monitoring of irregularities classified as 
not  subject  to  notification  to  the  Commission  in  cases  where  new  conditions 
have arisen in the course of their investigation that would make them subject to 
notification; 

-  whether  irregularities  that  were  found  and  were  not  reported  to  the 

Commission were not in fact subject to this obligation. 

1.23.  Portugal 

Q.1.  Have  you  ensured  that  verification  and  monitoring  measures  are  kept  at  a  high 
level? 

☒YES, fully implementing the recommendation 

If  you  implemented  fully  the  recommendation,  could  you  indicate  how  this  was 
achieved?  Can  you  share  any  specific  finding  in  relation  to  such  measures?  Have 
detections increased, decreased or remained stable overall? 

Procurement in response to the pandemic is being monitored at the highest level, with reports 
sent to the relevant supervisory authorities and the Ministry of Finance. 

85 

 
 
Q.2  Have  you  ensured  that  emergency  procurement  is  used  on  the  basis  of  a  case-by-
case assessment? 

☒YES, fully implementing the recommendation 

If you implemented fully the recommendation, could you indicate which procedures you 
have put in place to achieve that?  

The  procurement  procedures  were  conducted  in  line  with  the  legal  framework  specifically 
established for the purpose. 

Q.3 Have you already completed the transition to e-procurement processes?  

☒YES, fully implementing the recommendation 

Q.4 Have you taken any measures to further strengthen transparency in the use of EU 
funds, in particular in relation to emergency procurement?  

☒YES 

If yes, could you specify which ones and how they strengthen the existing transparency 
framework? 

The existence of a specific legal framework makes it possible to identify which procedures are 
covered, making the procurement process more transparent and ensuring compliance with the 
specific rules applicable. 

Q.5 Have you ensured that the reporting of irregularities, in particular non-fraudulent, 
for the 2014-2020 programming period is closely monitored? 

☒YES, fully implementing the recommendation 

If you implemented fully the recommendation, could you indicate which procedures you 
have put in place? Which was the outcome of these new procedures? 

The procedures put in place involve the managing authorities, certifying authorities and audit 
authorities, thereby ensuring that different aspects of the spending process are covered. 

Moreover,  in  its  annual  audits,  the  audit  authority  checks  that  all  the  irregular  amounts 
detected are indeed reported. 

1.24.  Romania 

Q.1.  Have  you  ensured  that  verification  and  monitoring  measures  are  kept  at  a  high 
level? 

☒YES, fully implementing the recommendation 

86 

 
 
If  you  implemented  fully  the  recommendation,  could  you  indicate  how  this  was 
achieved?  Can  you  share  any  specific  finding  in  relation  to  such  measures?  Have 
detections increased, decreased or remained stable overall? 

Romanian Ministry of investments and European projects 

At  the  national  level,  there  is  ex-ante  verification  of  the  fulfilment  of  the  conditions  for  the 
application of the negotiation procedure without publication carried out uniformly by ANAP, 
respectively for  the verification  of  the way this procedure is  conducted  -  Order no. 1894 of 
08.07.2019 on the approval of the checklists related to quality control exercise and regularity 
of  the  awarding  process  of  contracts/framework  agreements  of  public/sectoral  procurement 
and works and services concessions contracts. 

At  the  level  of  the  managing  authorities,  which  perform  ex-post  verification  from  the 
perspective  of  the  procedure,  but  ex-ante  from  the  perspective  of  reimbursing  the  expenses 
from European funds, there is a unitary checklist approved by Order OMFE no. 879/2019 on 
the approval of the checklist for the e for awarding public procurement contracts procedure, 
sectoral  contracts,  framework  agreements,  provided  by  Law  no.  98/2016  on  public 
procurement and Law no. 99/2016 on sectoral procurement. This checklist contains at “point 
3.1 Choice of procedure ”the verification of the way in which the beneficiaries complied with 
the specific requirements for applying the exceptions expressly provided by the procurement 
legislation. 

Q.2  Have  you  ensured  that  emergency  procurement  is  used  on  the  basis  of  a  case-by-
case assessment? 

☒YES, fully implementing the recommendation 

If you implemented fully the recommendation, could you indicate which procedures you 
have put in place to achieve that?  

Romanian Ministry of investments and European projects 

In  April  2020,  Public  Procurement  Coordination  Unit  within  Ministry  of  European  Funds 
outlined to all Managing Authorities that negotiations procedures without publication should 
be  applied  as  exceptions  under  stricter  conditions  and  ask  them  to  inform  all  beneficiaries. 
Also, at the beginning of this year, it was underlined to all Managing Authorities that from the 
perspective of public procurement verifications it is important to take into account and follow 
the additional risks arrived in the context of awarding procedure with contracts signed during 
the pandemic crises and emergency procurement should be used only on case by case basis.  

At  the  level  of  MA  for  Large  Infrastructure  Operational  Programme  were  registered 
emergency procurements (especially regarding Axis 9 - COVID) and analysed from case by 
case, the procurement verifications being performed 100%. 

National Office for Centralized Procurement (ONAC) 

ONAC  was  in  charge  for  the  procurement  of  electronic  devices  (tablet  computers)  with 
internet  connection  for  facilitating  the  distance  teaching  activity  for  students  at  schools 
across  all  country  and  always  chose  the  procurement  procedure  and  elaborated  the 

87 

 
 
contracting  strategy  on  a  case-by-case  assessment.  First,  ONAC  initiated  an  open  tender, 
organized in nine lots by geographical reasons.  

After the annulment of six lots, for procuring the needed products, ONAC and the Ministry of 
Education  analysed  the  situation  and  decided  to  select  the  negotiation  procedure  without 
prior  publication  (art.  32  of  Directive  2014/24/EU)  in  order  to  achieve  the  procurement's 
objectives. 

The Romanian Government issued an emergency ordinance on emergency medical stocks, as 
well  as  some  measures  related  to  the  establishment  of  quarantine,  mandating  ONAC  to 
procure  a  list  of  medical  emergency  stocks  products,  of  strict  necessity,  only  by  organizing 
negotiated  procedures  without  prior  publication.  The  decisions  (qualification  criteria, 
number of days for elaborating the bids, modality for submitting the bids and communication 
with  the  bidders  etc.)  regarding  these  procurement  procedures  were  approved  after  an 
individual analysis.  

ONAC  properly  managed  all  emergency  procurement  procedures  and  implemented  the 
Communication  from  the  Commission  -  Guidance  from  the  European  Commission  on  using 
the public procurement framework in the emergency situation related to the COVID-19 crisis 
(2020/C 108 I/01) and ANAP’s Press release - Clarifications regarding the realization of the 
acquisitions provided in the Decree of the President of Romania regarding the establishment 
of the state of emergency on the Romanian territory. 

Q.3 Have you already completed the transition to e-procurement processes?  

☒YES, fully implementing the recommendation 

Q.4 Have you taken any measures to further strengthen transparency in the use of EU 
funds, in particular in relation to emergency procurement?  

☒YES 

National Office for Centralized Procurement (ONAC) 

Although  the  tender  procedure  stipulated  on  article  32  of  Directive  2014/24/EU  is  the 
negotiated procedure without prior publication, for most of the procurement procedures for 
the  goods  stipulated  in  the  list  of  medical  emergency  stocks  products,  of  strict  necessity, 
ONAC elaborated the contracting strategy and took measures to strengthen transparency by 
publishing a prior notice on the national electronic public procurement platform (SEAP) and 
on the ONAC’s website. 

Regarding the procurement of electronic devices (tablet computers) with internet connection 
for  facilitating  the  distance  teaching  activity,  after  conducting  an  open  tender,  ONAC 
resumed  the  procurement  for  the  six  lots  annulled  by  organizing  a  negotiated  procedure 
without  prior  publication  by  publishing  a  notice  on  the  national  electronic  public 
procurement platform (SEAP) and on the ONAC’s website.  

After conducting this procedure, ONAC resumed the procurement for the two lots annulled by 
organizing a new negotiated procedure without prior publication also by taking a measure to 
increase transparency and publishing a notice on the national electronic public procurement 
platform (SEAP) and on the ONAC’s website.  

88 

 
 
Moreover,  before  the  initiation  of  the  open  tender,  ONAC  and  the  Ministry  of  Education 
conducted a market consultation with the main operators on the national level.  

Romanian Ministry of investments and European projects 

The national public procurement legislation ensures an adequate level of transparency. The 
ex-post verification of the Managing Authority is in accordance with the legal provisions of 
the public procurement. 

Q.5 Have you ensured that the reporting of irregularities, in particular non-fraudulent, 
for the 2014-2020 programming period is closely monitored? 

☒YES, fully implementing the recommendation 

If you implemented fully the recommendation, could you indicate which procedures you 
have put in place? Which was the outcome of these new procedures? 

DLAF- RO AFCOS 

Documentary checks of the MA's, audit missions and DLAF controls led to the discovery of 
the irregularities, which were reported in the IMS. 

Maintaining a close relationship with the reporting authorities and monitoring the fulfilment 
of the obligation to report irregularities on a quarterly basis. 

Romanian Ministry of investments and European projects 

At the level of MAs the reporting and monitoring of irregularities is proceed according to: 

–  the  operational  procedure  –  reporting  of  all  suspected  irregularities  to  the  Certifying  and 
Payment  Authority  (CPA)  and  to  the  DLAF  for  suspected  irregularities  with  a  value  of 
more than 10,000 euro in contribution from the Funds 

–  the  agreement  on  financial  management  singed  between  MAs  and  CPA  –  quarterly 

reconciliation of cases of irregularity  

–  GEO 66/2011 – AM`s obligation to monitor all cases of irregularities on a quarterly basis 
and  to  take  the  necessary  measures  to  improve  the  management  and  financial  control 
systems in order to prevent their recurrence in the future. 

As a preventive measure, GEO 66/2011 also provide that at an early stage of the investigation 
of irregularities (suspicion of irregularity) the expenditure is not included in the request for 
payment sent to the European Commission. 

Ministry of Development, Public Works and Administration  

All cases of irregularity / fraud are managed in accordance with the national and European 
legislation in force, as well as with the irregularity management procedure. 

All cases of irregularities are monitored at the level of each MA, especially those that require 
IMS reporting (ineligible expenditure of more than EUR 10 000 - source of EU funding and 

89 

 
 
fraud cases). The tool for monitoring these cases is the Register of irregularities / debts, so 
there is no possibility to overlook the reporting of such a case. 

Although  MAs  have  intensified  their  controls,  the  number  of  identified  irregularities  has 
decreased compared to the previous programming period, due to the experience gained by the 
beneficiaries in project implementation, as well as the constant assistance provided by MA in 
project implementation. 

Agency for Payments and Intervention for Agriculture (APIA) 

The reporting of identified irregularities is done through and by internal control structures. 

Paying Agency for Rural Investments (AFIR) 

AFIR implemented the recommendations, the irregularities are communicated and monitored 
through the function of the existing AFIR Irregularity Officer. 

1.25.  Slovakia 

The  Government  Office  of  the  Slovak  Republic,  which  is  responsible  for  ensuring  and 
coordinating  the  protection  of  the  EU´s  financial  interests  in  the  Slovak  Republic  via  its 
organisational unit National Office for OLAF (which also acts as Slovak AFCOS) contacted 
AFCOS  network  partners  (national  authorities,  including  Managing  Authorities,  certifying 
authority,  control  bodies  and  judicial  authorities)  in  order  to  provide  relevant  information 
with  respect  to  the  implementation  of  the  Commission´s  recommendations.  AFCOS  network 
partners considered the content of the recommendations and replies were provided mainly by 
partners acting as Managing Authorities or as intermediate bodies for individual operational 
programmes.  Certifying  Authority  (CA)  provided  information  related  to  recommendation 
concerning reporting of irregularities. 

Q.1.  Have  you  ensured  that  verification  and  monitoring  measures  are  kept  at  a  high 
level? 

☒YES, partly implementing the recommendation 

If you implemented partially the recommendation, could you explain why you think that 
it was a partial implementation and why a full implementation was not possible? 

Based on the replies provided by the AFCOS partners it can be summarised that verification 
and  monitoring  measures  are  still  kept  at  a  high  level,  even  during  the  pandemic  situation. 
Managing authorities regularly update their procedures and, if relevant, measures allowing 
for a more flexible approach in this particular situation are adopted as well. However, one of 
the  current  challenges  is  the  planning  and  performance  of  the  on  the  spot  checks,  as  these 
days the personal contact should be kept at minimum.  

Below please find the detailed information from the individual managing authorities: 

1.  The Ministry of Economy of the Slovak Republic (MEc SR) as the intermediate body 
for the Operational Programme Integrated Infrastructure in the programming period 
(PP) 2014 – 2020 fully implemented the recommendation. 

90 

 
 
in 

the  process  of  public  procurement  control 

MEc SR carries out verification and monitoring in accordance with the methodology 
set  out  in  the  Procedure  Manual  or  relevant  internal  methodical  guidelines  and 
regulations (which are in accordance with the methodical guidelines and regulations 
set out on the national level by the Central Coordinating Body (CCB) and CA). MEc 
SR  focuses  on  constant  improvement  of  the  management  and  control  system  of  the 
projects  co-financed  from  the  operational  programme  Integrated  Infrastructure  in 
accordance  with  the  principle  of  sound  financial  management  in  order  to  minimize 
shortcomings and the risks of possible fraudulent behaviour. Some of the examples of 
measures  adopted  and  carried  out  by  MEc  SR  are:  (1)  verification  system  in  the 
selection process includes, among other things, also verification that the beneficiary is 
not listed in EDES database which provides a list of economic subjects excluded from 
contracts financed by the EU budget or sanctioned for grave professional misconduct, 
criminal  activities,  or  significant  deficiencies  in  meeting  their  obligations;(2) 
verification  system 
includes 
comprehensive  cost-effectiveness  verification,  apart  from  the  verification  that  the 
public  procurement has  been  carried out in compliance with  the national  legislation 
(act. No 343/2015 Coll. on Public Procurement and on amendments to certain other 
acts,  as  amended);  (3)  elaboration  and  publication  of  comprehensive  guidelines  on 
public  procurement  process,  including  standardized  model  forms  and  documents, 
among  others  is  declaration  of  exclusion  of  the  conflict  of  interests  in  the  public 
procurement process and the list of the most common errors in the public procurement 
with  aim to minimize  possible breach  of  EU and national public procurement rules; 
(4)  establishing  an  internal  control  body  in  order  to  ensure  correct  and  effective 
verification of the size of undertaking (SME status) and de minimis aid cumulation. IT 
systems  such  as  ARACHNE  (developed  and  provided  by  the  European  Commission) 
and SEMP (provided by the Antimonopoly Office of the Slovak Republic) are used as 
verification tools; (5) using IT monitoring system (ITMS2014+) interlinked with other 
national public registers as a verification tool in order to verify that the applicants or 
beneficiaries meet general and specific criteria and conditions set out in the calls or 
contracts. ITMS2014+ is also used for registering control and audit findings including 
irregularities; (6) Managing fraud risks in compliance with the European Commission 
(EC)  EGESIF  guidance  14-0021-00  from  16/06/2014  “Fraud  Risk  Assessment  and 
Effective and Proportionate Anti-Fraud Measures”. On the national level the working 
group  has  been  established  by  the  Central  Coordinating  Authority  in  order  to 
coordinate and unify the fraud risk management systems of the Managing Authorities 
(or intermediate bodies where relevant). 

2.  The Ministry  of Labour,  Social Affairs  and Family of the Slovak Republic, acting as 
Managing  Authority  for  the  Operational  Programme  Human  Resources  fully 
implemented the recommendation.  

Expenditures  and  monitoring  verification  is  challenging  due  to  vast  number  of 
participating  entities.  Nevertheless  the  Managing  Authority  and  the  beneficiary  are 
taking all necessary actions to fulfil eligibility conditions. 

3.  The Ministry of Education, Science, Research and Sport of the Slovak Republic, acting 
as  intermediate  body  for  the  Operational  Programme  Integrated  Infrastructure  and 
Operational Programme Human Resources fully implemented the recommendation.  

91 

 
 
The  verification  and  monitoring  measures  are  still  kept  at  a  high  level.  This  is  still 
ensured by data provided in the requests for payment (additional monitoring data as 
part  of  the  request  for  payment) and  monitoring  reports from  beneficiaries.  The 
only method which was not used in the pandemic period from March 2020 was the on-
the-spot  check at  the beneficiaries  as  it  could  not  take  place.  In  the  technical 
assistance  projects  it  was  replaced  by  administrative  control  where  the  additional 
data was provided upon our specific requests. 

4.  The Ministry of Environment of the Slovak Republic, acting as the Managing Authority 
for the Operational Programme Quality of Environment (OP QE) partly implemented 
the recommendation. 

The monitoring of the OP QE in 2019 and 2020 took place in accordance with the set 
processes, either at the project or program level. In the case of monitoring at project 
level, there was no change in the reporting of progress data in terms of physical and 
financial  implementation.  All  monitoring  data  at  project  level  are  recorded  through 
the beneficiaries in ITMS2014 + system and subsequently verified by the intermediate 
bodies.  From  the  point  of  view  of  monitoring  at  programme  level,  certain  changes 
have taken place with the entry into force of REGULATION (EU) 2020/558 OF THE 
EUROPEAN  PARLIAMENT  AND  OF  THE  COUNCIL  of  23  April  2020  amending 
Regulations  (EU)  No  182/2011,  1301/2013  and  (EU)  no.  1303/2013  as  regards 
specific  measures  to  ensure  exceptional  flexibility  in  the  use  of  the  European 
Structural  and  Investment  Funds  in  response  to  the  outbreak  of  COVID-19 
(Regulation).  Among  the  most  fundamental  measures  taken  to  use  the  ESI  Funds 
following  this  regulation  were:(1)  by  way  of  derogation  from  Article  60  (2),  1  and 
Article  120  paragraph  3  of  the  first  and  fourth  subparagraphs,  at  the  request  of  a 
Member State, expenditure declared in payment applications during a financial year 
beginning  on  1  July  2020  and  ending  on  30  June  2021  may  be  allocated  to  one  or 
more priority axes or the Cohesion Fund to apply a co-financing rate of 100%; (2) in 
response  to  the  occurrence  of  COVID-19,  the  resources  available  for  programming 
for 2020 for the Investment for growth and jobs goal may be transferred between the 
ERDF, the ESF and the Cohesion Fund at the request of a Member State, regardless 
of the percentages set out in Article 92 par. 1 letter a) to d); (3) by way of derogation 
from the deadlines laid down in the regulations for each Fund, the annual report on 
the implementation of the program referred to in Article 50 (2) 1 for 2019 for all ESI 
Funds by 30 September 2020. Transmission of summary report to be prepared by the 
Commission in 2020 in accordance with Article 53 (1) may be postponed accordingly. 

Also at the program level, with  regard to the  activities of the OP QE  carried out to 
combat  COVID-19,  new  program  indicators  were  added  under  Priority  Axis  3  - 
Support for risk management, emergency management and resilience to emergencies 
affected by climate change. With regard to the generation of data at the program level 
through the ITMS2014 + system, the MA does not record any major problems within 
the monitoring of the OP QE in connection with the COVID-19 disease. 

5.  The  Ministry  of  Agriculture  and  Rural  Development  of  the  Slovak  Republic  and  the 
Agricultural  Paying  Agency  (APA),  responsible  for  Rural  Development  Programme 
and direct payments partly implemented the recommendation. 

APA is accredited as the paying agency in accordance with the valid EU legislation 
and its activity is verified annually by a Certifying Authority (CA). Based on the CA 
92 

 
 
recommendations APA has implemented more effective measures: (1) APA has set up 
procedures for the systematic recording of all suspicions of frauds for the purposes of 
better  monitoring  the  status  of  individual  findings  on  a  regular  basis,  and  the 
information is then provided to the relevant departments. Data and information from 
previous years on entities are also gradually added to this database, as these have an 
impact on the handling of irregularities and suspected fraud.  

In 2020, the APA implemented an effective tool in the fight against fraud - monitoring 
the risks of fraud and corruption and monitoring the measures defined in the Action 
Plan for fraud risk management.  

APA  also  organized  e-learning  in  the  fight  against  fraud  for  all  employees  and  all 
employees passed the  test  from the given training.  We are still  aware of the need to 
implement further measures. CA identified certain risks and therefore the APA started 
to implement other horizontal measures in order to protect the financial EU interests: 
(1)monitoring  of  fraud  indicators  -  in  order  to  detect  suspected  fraud;  (2)defining 
sensitive positions in APA - identifying sensitive positions in order to protect the EU's 
financial interests, protect against fraud and misuse of funds and raise the awareness 
of APA staff in the performance of their tasks; (3) adoption of measures on conflicts of 
interest - Pursuant to Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) no. 907/2014, Annex I 
(Accreditation  Criteria),  (v)  the  Agency  shall  avoid  a  conflict  of    interests  where  a 
person occupying a position of responsibility or a sensitive position with regard to the 
verification, authorization, payment and accounting of claims or payment request also 
fulfils other functions outside the paying agency the conflict of interest, if the person in 
a position of high responsibility or sensibility, who from the view of, paying and also 
performs other functions outside the paying agency. 

Q.2  Have  you  ensured  that  emergency  procurement  is  used  on  the  basis  of  a  case-by-
case assessment? 

☒YES, partly implementing the recommendation 

If you implemented partially the recommendation, could you explain why you think that 
it was a partial implementation and why a full implementation was not possible? 

Pursuant  Act  No.  343/2015  Coll.  on  Public  Procurement  as  amended,  the  contracting 
authority can apply direct negotiation procedure (without publication) only when the need of 
goods, services or works was caused by an emergency situation which cannot be foreseen and 
was not caused by the contracting authority and the goods, services or works are necessary to 
satisfy such need and the standard procedures cannot be used. Based on Article 82 paragraph 
4, if the direct negotiation procedure is used due to the emergency situation, the contracting 
authority  is  obliged  to  submit  to  the  Public  Procurement  Office,  before  concluding  the 
contract, a notification stating the reasons for the use of this procedure. However, this is not 
necessary,  if  the  contracting  authority  published  the  notification  of  intention  to  conclude  a 
contract.   

Based on the replies from the AFCOS partners acting as Managing Authorities/Intermediate 
Bodies, it seems that, until now, emergency procurement is not often used within the projects 
co-financed from their operational programmes. Their specific replies are provided below. 

1.  The Ministry of Environment of the Slovak Republic (MEn SR) 

93 

 
 
MEn  SR  transferred  to  the  management  documentation  some  measures  and  options 
beneficiaries  can  use  in  the  procurement  of  goods  and  services  that  are  directly 
related  to  the  emergency  situation  (conclusion  of  amendments,  procurement  of 
exceptions).  However,  the  beneficiary  must,  in  addition  to  the  management 
documentation, also proceed in accordance with the Act on Public Procurement, the 
ESI  Funds  Management  System  and  other  relevant  documents  when  procuring 
contracts  during  an  extraordinary  situation.  If  the  MA  of  the  OP  Quality  of 
Environment  (OP  QE)  wants  to  proceed  within  the  framework  of  emergency 
procurement in some cases (eg low value contracts) it cannot use simplified rules, as 
it is not allowed by the internal public procurement directive and also the MA of the 
OP QE does  not have a  Central Coordinating Body  (CCB)  exception  from  the rules 
regulated  in  the  ESI  Funds  Management  System  2014  -  2020  in  the  case  of  the 
purchase  of  commodities  needed  in  connection  with  an  emergency  situation.  The 
mentioned exception would mean that the beneficiaries within the OP EQ will proceed 
with low-value contracts only in the sense of Act on public procurement and according 
to their internal rules. None of the Intermediate Bodies of OP QE, which acts as the 
beneficiary in PA 5, did not address us a request to incorporate these changes, resp. 
request for a CCB exemption. 

2.  The  Ministry  of  Agriculture  and  Rural  Development  of  the  Slovak  Republic  and  the 

Agricultural Paying Agency (APA) 

If  the  applicant/beneficiary  submits  the  procurement  request,  he  shall  submit  for 
assessment  a  justification  of  the  emergency  procurement,  supported  by  relevant 
evidence (description of the facts, market research, and communication with suppliers 
on the availability / unavailability of the subject of the contract, etc.). 

3.  The Ministry of Economy of the Slovak Republic (MEc SR)  

Emergency procurement procedures are not relevant for the projects co-financed from 
the operational program Integrated Infrastructure. This type of procurement has not 
yet been applied. 

4.  The Ministry of Labour, Social Affairs and Family of the Slovak Republic  

Regarding the methodology of public procurement control, the rules and obligations 
of the Managing Authority for the Operational Program Human Resources are listed 
in  Guideline  No.  1/2015  on  public  procurement  (“Guideline”).  The  rules  and 
obligations in the time of emergency caused by spreading of COVID-19 disease, are 
declared in accordance with generally binding legislation of the Slovak Republic, EU 
legislation,  guidelines  of  Central  Coordination  Body  and  Office 
for  Public 
Procurement  and  are  regulated  in  Annex  No.  19  of  the  Guideline  (Annex  19 
"Guideline of Managing Authority in relation to an emergency situation declared due 
to the spreading disease COVID-19 (coronavirus)"). For example, we quote: “In not 
regulated cases, the MA will make an effort to assess each case individually, but at the 
same  time  will  apply  a  maximally  client-oriented  approach,  while  respecting  the 
principle of equal treatment”. 

5.  The  Ministry  of  Education,  Science,  Research  and  Sport  of  the  Slovak  Republic 
mentioned that for example, recipients should not impose sanctions towards suppliers 

94 

 
 
who  do  not  deliver  the  goods  or  services  within  the  delivery  time  agreed  in  the 
contract / order in relation to the situation and coronavirus measures. 

Q.3 Have you already completed the transition to e-procurement processes?  

☒YES, partly implementing the recommendation 

If partially or not, could you briefly explain at which point you are in the process? 

In the Slovak Republic the e-procurement is partly implemented. The Ministry of Economy of 
the Slovak Republic described the current state-of-play in the Slovak Republic as follows:  

Act. No 343/2015 Coll. on Public Procurement and on amendments to certain other acts, as 
amended regulates in the Article 20 (1) that the communication and exchange of information 
shall be carried out through the electronic means, with exemptions specified in the Article 20 
(7).  Public  procurement  can  be  currently  conducted  electronically  through  the  national 
procurement  information  systems  EVO  (e-public  procurement),  managed  by  the  Public 
Procurement  Office,  or  EKS  (electronic  contracting  system),  managed  by  the  Ministry  of 
Interior of the Slovak Republic, as well as through the various private e-auction systems. EKS 
system is integrated to the Register of the Economic Operators and EVO is integrated to the 
Central  Portal  of  Public  Administration,  offering  additional  functionality and  connection  to 
other national systems and public registers.  

Below please find further details provided by other Managing Authorities: 

1.  The Ministry of Environment of the Slovak Republic (MEn SR) 

From 19/10/2018, electronization in public procurement is mandatory for above-limit 
and below-limit orders. This obligation is controlled by the MA of the OP KŽP during 
the  process  of  control  of  public  procurement  and  also  participates  in  the  provision 
and preparation, resp. evaluation of the electronic public procurement process. 

2.  The Ministry of Labour, Social Affairs and Family of the Slovak Republic  

At  present,  based  on  the  rules  and  obligations  of  the  Managing  Authority  for  the 
Operational  Programe  Human  Resources,  the  control  of  public  procurement  is 
performed  from  electronically  submitted  documentation  by  the  beneficiary  (for 
example from the ITMS2014 + system). 

Q.4 Have you taken any measures to further strengthen transparency in the use of EU 
funds, in particular in relation to emergency procurement?  

☒NO 

If not, could you explain why and how your current system already ensures an adequate 
level of transparency? 

Pursuant  to  Act  No.  343/2015  Coll.  on  Public  Procurement,  as  amended,  the  contracting 
authority  must  comply  with 
treatment,  non-discrimination, 
the  principles  of  equal 
transparency, proportionality, effectiveness and economy.  

Below please find further details provided by Managing Authorities: 

95 

 
 
1.  The Ministry of Labour, Social Affairs and Family of the Slovak Republic 

Regarding public procurement  control methodology, the Managing Authority for the 
Operational  Program  Human  Resources  has  not  taken  any  additional  measures  to 
further  enhance  transparency  in  the  use  of  EU  funds,  in  relation  to  emergency 
procurement,  other  than  the  Annex  no.  19  indicated  in  Q.2.  Managing  Authority 
currently  considers  the  setting  of  the  rules  and  obligations  in  the  control  of  public 
procurement to be sufficient (laws, guidelines, ARACHNE system). 

2.  The  Ministry  of  Education,  Science,  Research  and  Sport  of  the  Slovak  Republic, 
ensures an adequate level of transparency by publication of documents in the profile 
of  the  contracting  authority/Beneficiary  or  on  the  website  of  the  contracting 
authority/Beneficiary,  depending  on  the  procurement  procedure;  information  system 
through which public procurement is carried out; ensuring that everyone has access 
to documents. 

3.  The Ministry of Economy of the Slovak Republic (MEc SR): Emergency procurement 
procedures are not relevant for the projects co-financed from the operational program 
Integrated Infrastructure. This type of procurement has not been applied yet. 

4.  The  Ministry  of  Environment  of  the  Slovak  Republic  (ME  SR)MŽP  SR:  When 
awarding  contracts  financed  from  the  ESI  Funds,  the  MA  is  governed  by  Act  no. 
343/2015  Coll.  on  Public  Procurement  and  on  Amendments  to  Certain  Acts, 
Methodological Instructions of the CCB, resp. ESIF management system. Documents 
issued by the CCB, as well as their updates, are implemented by the MA within the set 
deadline  into  the  internal  management  documentation,  as  well  as  into  practice 
.Measures  in  relation  to  transparency  in  the  use  of  EU  funds  are  sufficiently  used 
within the OP EQ. 

5.  The  Ministry  of  Agriculture  and  Rural  Development  of  the  Slovak  Republic  and  the 
Agricultural  Paying  Agency  (APA):  The  PPA  does  not  use  EU  funds  in  connection 
with emergency procurement, but also in the case of emergency procurement the same 
control procedures are applied as in the case of standard procurement in the sense of 
the Handbook on the Public Procurement Process of the Managing Authority. 

Q.5 Have you ensured that the reporting of irregularities, in particular non-fraudulent, 
for the 2014-2020 programming period is closely monitored? 

☒YES, fully implementing the recommendation 

If you implemented fully the recommendation, could you indicate which procedures you 
have put in place? Which was the outcome of these new procedures? 

The  Ministry  of  Finance  of  the  Slovak  Republic,  acting  as  Certifying  Authority  (CA)  stated 
that the recommendation is fully implemented. Taking into account that there have not been 
adopted  any  new  procedures  regulating  reporting  of  irregularities,  no  significant  changes 
compared to  2019 took place. However, the recommendation is  fully implemented thanks to 
procedures  that  have  been  already  in  process  from  the  beginning  of  the  2014-2020 
programming period. Cooperation between Managing Authority, Certifying Authority and the 
National Office for OLAF in Slovak Republic is realized through an information monitoring 
system  (ITMS2014+)  where  all  irregularities  are  recorded  in  detail.  Also  the  monthly  / 

96 

 
 
quarterly reports are compiled in this system, therefore each new irregularity, fraudulent and 
non-fraudulent, or its actualization is automatically included in the report if meets all of the 
condition.  As  we  mentioned,  all  irregularities  in  the  2014-2020  programming  period  are 
monitored  through  information  system,  therefore  even  pandemic  situation  have  not  had 
negative affect on reporting. 

Below please find further details provided by other Managing Authorities: 

1.  The  Ministry  of  Labour,  Social  Affairs  and  Family  of  the  Slovak  Republic  fully 
implemented  the recommendation. Every irregularity  is monitored the  IT  monitoring 
system  (ITMS2014+).  This  system  allows  detailed  monitoring  and  storage  of  all 
information  and  documents  related  to  irregularities.  It  also  allows  filtering  of  data 
entered into the system to create the necessary overviews. 

2.  The  Ministry  of  Education,  Science,  Research  and  Sport  of  the  Slovak  Republic 
reports  irregularities  to  relevant  entities  in  accordance  with  the  "Guidelines  on 
Irregularities  and  Financial  Corrections  in  the  Financial  Management  of  Structural 
Funds,  Cohesion  Fund  and  European  Maritime  and  Fisheries  Fund  for  the 
programming period  2014-2020"  and in accordance with the “Manual for reporting 
irregularities”, the procedures of which are taken into account/incorporated into the 
IB Procedures Manual 

3.  The  Ministry  of  Economy  of  the  Slovak  Republic  (ME  SR)  fully  implemented  the 
recommendation.  Regarding  non-fraudulent  irregularities  ME  SR  carries  out 
detection, reporting and monitoring in compliance with the Methodical guidelines of 
the  Certifying  Authority,  Central  Coordinating  Authority  and  National  Office  for 
OLAF  for  dealing  with  suspected  financial  irregularities  and  their  impact  on  the 
contracts.  The  irregularity  cases  are  reported  into  the  IT  monitoring  system 
(ITMS2014+).  Each  suspected  irregularity  is  recorded  and  classified  in  the  system 
according to the Commission typology of irregularities as correct classification is the 
basis  for  distinguishing  between  “fraudulent  irregularities”  and  “non-fraudulent 
irregularities”.  

4.  The  Ministry  of  Environment  of  the  Slovak  Republic  fully  implemented  the 
recommendation.    Within  the  OP  EQ,  monitoring  of  the  potential  occurrence  of 
irregularities  is  sufficiently  ensured,  namely  by  unambiguous  determination  of 
competencies  and  responsibilities  within  the  performance  of  activities  performed  at 
the  MA,  implementation  of  the  whistleblowing  system,  increasing  the  ability  of  MA 
staff  in  control  and  monitoring  functions  to  identify  fraud  indicators,  using  the 
ARACHNE tool, monitoring fraud indicators and the like. The MA is also involved in 
the prevention, detection, detection, resolution and reporting of irregularities, as well 
as  the  adoption  of  corrective  measures.  The  MA  will  assess  the  identified  deficiency 
according to the conditions of the definition of irregularity and Guideline 2/2015-U on 
irregularities  and  financial  corrections  within  the  financial  management  of  the 
Structural Funds, Cohesion Fund and European Maritime and Fisheries Fund for the 
programming period 2014-2020 as amended. In the event of an irregularity, the MA 
registers the irregularity in the ITMS2014 + system and documents it in the document 
the  Report  on  the  detected  irregularity.  The  MA  proceeds  in  accordance  with 
applicable  laws  and  regulations,  e.g.  Act  no.  292/2014  Coll.  on  the  contribution 
provided from the European Structural and Investment Funds and on the amendment 
of certain laws as amended. 

97 

 
 
5.  The  Ministry  of  Agriculture  and  Rural  Development  of  the  Slovak  Republic  and  the 
Agricultural  Paying  Agency  (APA)  fully  implemented  the  recommendation.  The 
responsible  coordinating  body  for  reporting  irregularities  to  the  Commission  on 
behalf of the Slovak Republic is the Office of the Government of the Slovak Republic, 
the Control Section, National Office for OLAF, which administers the access rights for 
IMS. APA submits reports in accordance with the currently valid manual for reporting 
irregularities to the National Office for OLAF on a quarterly basis.  

1.26.  Slovenia 

Q.1.  Have  you  ensured  that  verification  and  monitoring  measures  are  kept  at  a  high 
level? 

☒YES, fully implementing the recommendation 

If  you  implemented  fully  the  recommendation,  could  you  indicate  how  this  was 
achieved?  Can  you  share  any  specific  finding  in  relation  to  such  measures?  Have 
detections increased, decreased or remained stable overall? 

Answer of the Government Office for Development and European Cohesion Policy: 

Public  procurement  is  completely  electronic,  in  2021  eRevizija,  an  electronic  complaint 
system in public procurement procedures, started operating. At present, the effects cannot be 
reported.  However,  the  procedures  themselves  are  more  transparent.  Example:  bids  are 
opened  electronically,  in  a  system,  which  reduces  human  impact.  There  is  still  room  for 
improvements.  

Management  Authority  followed  guide  notes  of  Coronavirus  Response  Investment  Initiative 
what  resulted  in  issuing  MA  guidelines  on  eligibility  to  the  intermediate  bodies  and 
consequently to the beneficiaries.  

Answer of the (AAMRD): 

The  Agency  of  the  Republic  of  Slovenia  for  Agricultural  Markets  and  Rural  Development 
(AAMRD)  has  a  well-established  system  for  detecting  and  preventing  fraud  and  artificially 
created  conditions,  as  well  as  preventing  conflicts  of  interest.  The  internal  documents 
governing  this  matter  are  the  accreditation  documentation,  which  forms  the  basis  for 
payments from EU funds of an accredited paying agency and must be taken into account by 
officials in their work. In addition, each official signs an annual declaration of non-conflict of 
interest. 

A risk analysis  is prepared for  each measure implemented by the paying agency  (AAMRD), 
and  according  to  the  identified  risks,  the  controls  provided  for  in  the  accreditation 
documentation are performed (four-eyes principle controls within administrative control, on-
the-spot controls). All this is already regulated at the level of the paying agency (AAMRD) for 
each individual measure. 

Applications  for  measures  related  to  the  SARS-CoV-2  epidemic  (COVID-19)  are  generally 
decided  only  on  the  basis  of  data  from  official  records  (Agency  for  Public  Records  and 
Services - AJPES, Register of Grape and Wine Producers, Register of Agricultural Holdings, 
Financial Administration of the Republic of Slovenia, Public Payments Administration, etc.), 

98 

 
 
managed by verified state institutions or legal entities founded by the state, which is one of the 
reasons why there is significantly less suspicion of fraud or artificially created conditions in 
these measures. Exceptionally, applicants are required to provide evidence of the existence of 
relevant facts, such as in the case of the "crisis distillation of wine" measure and the "crisis 
storage  of  wine"  measure,  where  the  paying  agency  -  within  the  process  of  detecting  and 
preventing fraud and artificial conditions, - verified the proof of distillation and proof of the 
intended  use  of  the  alcohol  by  obtaining  the  former  either  from  the  distillery  or  from  the 
winemaker himself and the latter from the national customs authority, which made it possible 
to  "cross-check"  the  quantities.  In  the  case  of  distillation  in  another  Member  State,  the 
quantity  of  wine  subject  to  distillation  was  checked  on  the  basis  of  CMRs  (international 
transport list) and, in parallel, an on-the-spot check was carried out through the institute for 
legal aid. 

The  amounts  granted  are  allocated  on  a  flat-rate  basis,  so  applicants  were  generally  not 
required  to  provide  proof  of  the  eligibility  of  the  amount  paid,  and  the  data  obtained  from 
official records often referred to the period before the COVID-19 epidemic, when the measure 
could not have been known to potential applicants. Each application received so far has been 
examined  administratively  on  a  four-eye  principle  basis,  for  each  application  we  have 
checked whether there is a suspicion of fraud and artificially created conditions and whether 
there  may  be  a  conflict  of  interest.  In  the  case  of  advance  payments,  it  was  consistently 
checked whether the required securities were lodged. 

Q.2  Have  you  ensured  that  emergency  procurement  is  used  on  the  basis  of  a  case-by-
case assessment? 

☒YES, fully implementing the recommendation 

If you implemented fully the recommendation, could you indicate which procedures you 
have put in place to achieve that? 

Answer of Government Office for Development and European Cohesion Policy: 

We have not carried out such public procurement in the field of cohesion policy, however we 
would use it on the case-by-case basic when the time period for normal procedure would not 
give use good results.  

Q.3 Have you already completed the transition to e-procurement processes?  

☒YES, fully implementing the recommendation 

Answer of Government Office for Development and European Cohesion Policy: 

Procedures above the threshold for publication on the JN Portal are completely electronic, as 
is the revision procedure itself. 

Q.4 Have you taken any measures to further strengthen transparency in the use of EU 
funds, in particular in relation to emergency procurement?  

☒YES 

99 

 
 
If yes, could you specify which ones and how they strengthen the existing transparency 
framework? 

Answer of Government Office for Development and European Cohesion Policy: 

We  have  always  requested  at  least  two  offers  (in  general).  We  have  not  carried  out  such 
public procurement (emergency procurement) in the field of cohesion policy. 

Q.5 Have you ensured that the reporting of irregularities, in particular non-fraudulent, 
for the 2014-2020 programming period is closely monitored? 

☒YES, partly implementing the recommendation 

If you implemented partially the recommendation, could you explain why you think that 
it was a partial implementation and why a full implementation was not possible? Which 
was the outcome of these new procedures? 

Answer of Government Office for Development and European Cohesion Policy: 

The  reduction  in  fraud  is  mainly  attributed  to  a  better  co-financing  agreement,  which  is 
mandatory  for  all  intermediary  bodies.  In  the  period  2021-2027,  we  will  try  to  include 
additional provisions regarding whistleblowers and similar institutes. 

1.27.  Spain 

Q.1. Have you ensured that verification and monitoring measures are kept at a high level? 

☒YES, fully implementing the recommendation 

If  you  implemented  fully  the  recommendation,  could  you  indicate  how  this  was 
achieved?  Can  you  share  any  specific  finding  in  relation  to  such  measures?  Have 
detections increased, decreased or remained stable overall? 

All the relevant authorities reported that the verification and monitoring measures have been 
kept  at  high  level,  similarly  to  previous  years.  This  has  been  due  to  the  implementation  of 
certain measures such as making an intensive use of IT tools in order to do the checks and 
verifications remotely, carrying out video-conferences with systems to record the interviews, 
thus  making  proof  of  the  date  in  which  the  interview  was  carried  out  in  order  to  keep  the 
corresponding  audit  trail,  and,  where  a  physical  check  was  necessary,  ensuring  the  strict 
compliance  with  the    preventive  measures  regarding  social  distance,  use  of  masks,  etc., 
among others. 

In some cases, on-the-spot verifications were delayed due to the restrictions and measures of 
confinement  adopted  during  2020,  but  have  been  or  will  be  carried  out  when  the 
circumstances allowed  (or allow) the corresponding  authorities to  carry them out  properly, 
making also use of the possibilities for flexibility laid down by different Commission DG´s in 
this sense. 

There is no evidence that the situation stemming from the COVID-19 crisis has influenced on 
the level of detections. 

100 

 
 
Q.2  Have  you  ensured  that  emergency  procurement  is  used  on  the  basis  of  a  case-by-
case assessment? 

☒YES, fully implementing the recommendation 

If you implemented fully the recommendation, could you indicate which procedures you 
have put in place to achieve that?  

The  State  Public  Procurement  Advisory  Board  (“Junta  Consultiva  de  Contratación  Pública 
del  Estado”)  adopted  and  published  in  April  2020  an  Information  Note  addressed  to  the 
contracting  authorities,  which  clearly  states  that  the  COVID-19  pandemic  does  not  itself 
allow  contracting  authorities  to  use  the  emergency  procedure  in  the  framework  of  public 
procurement.  Consequently,  it  lays  down  that  contracting  authorities  can  only  use  this 
procedure  on  the  basis  of  a  case-by-case  assessment  in  order  to  verify  if  the  particular 
circumstances  which  are  present  in  each  case  are  enough  to  meet  with  the  specific  legal 
requirements laid down by Law in order to be allowed to use this exceptional procedure.  

In addition to this, that note expressly establishes that contracting authorities must include in 
the  procurement  documentation  a  solid,  case-related  and  motivated  justification  about  the 
fulfilment  of  those  legal  requirements  in  each  specific  contract,  not  being  enough  for  this 
purposes to include a generic declaration regarding the situation stemming from the COVID-
19 pandemic. 

Furthermore,  article  120  of  the  Spanish  Public  Procurement  Law  (Law  9/2017)  lays  down 
that  the  Council  of  Ministers  must  be  notified  about  any  public  contract  that  has  been 
awarded under the emergency procedure at a state level (similar provisions apply at regional 
level),  no  later  than  one  month  after  the  decision  has  been  adopted.  The  above-mentioned 
Information  Note  of  the  State  Public  Procurement  Advisory  Board  lays  down  that,  in  the 
framework  of  this  notification,  the  corresponding  contracting  authority  must  inform  the 
Council of Ministers about the following issues, among others: 

  Justification  of  the  fulfilment  of  the  legal  requirements  that  allow  the  use  of  the 
emergency procedure, avoiding generic declarations, describing in detail the complete 
facts of the case, and explaining how those facts lead to the conclusion that those legal 
requirements are met. 

  Motivated explanation about the reasons why it is not possible to solve the situation or 
to acquire the goods or services through more competitive procurement processes. 

  Motivated  justification  that  the  subject  matter  of  the  contract  is  limited  to  those 
elements  that  are  strictly  indispensable  to  prevent  or  remedy  the  damages  stemming 
from the emergency situation and that the duration of the contract will not go beyond 
the end of such situation. An express reference is done to the need, where appropriate, 
to differentiate the elements of the activity that are necessary in order to overcome the 
emergency situation from those others which are necessary to complete such activity, 
but  not  to  overcome  the  emergency  situation  and  thus  can  be  procured  through  the 
ordinary procurement procedures.  

In addition to the above, and according to national law, Public Administrations at state level 
must  notify  to  the  delegated  controller  of  the  corresponding  Administration  (ministry  or 
public body) the initiation of any emergency procedure. This notification must be done on the 

101 

 
 
same date in which the emergency procedure was initiated, so that the delegated controller is 
able to carry out its control function appropriately.  

The Managing Authority of the ERDF, which is the fund with a higher amount of emergency 
procurement,  has  elaborated  a  specific  checklist  for  emergency  contracts  so  that  each 
emergency contract is analysed in detailed focusing on the principal risks associated to such 
type of procurement, before the expenditure related to the corresponding contract is declared 
to  the  Commission.  A  similar  measure  has  been  adopted  by  the  Managing  Authority  of  the 
ESF. 

Q.3 Have you already completed the transition to e-procurement processes?  

☒YES, partly implementing the recommendation 

If partially or not, could you briefly explain at which point you are in the process? 

The implementation is only partial because while part of the relevant authorities reported to 
have  fully  implemented  the  recommendation,  others  reported  that  there  are  certain  parts  of 
their procurement processes that are not electronic yet, although they are actively working to 
fully complete the transition to e-procurement and acknowledge that the COVID-19 crisis has 
accelerated  this  process,  which  is  something  that  the  Independent  Office  for  the  Regulation 
and  the  Supervision  of  Public  Contracts  has  also  highlighted  in  its  last  annual  supervisory 
report. 

Q.4 Have you taken any measures to further strengthen transparency in the use of EU 
funds, in particular in relation to emergency procurement?  

☒YES 

If yes, could you specify which ones and how they strengthen the existing transparency 
framework? 

Articles 151 and 154 of the Spanish Public Procurement Law (Law 9/2017) lay down that the 
award  and  formalization  of  the  contract  must  be  published  in  any  case  in  the  centralized 
procurement  electronic  portals  foreseen  in  such  Law,  thus  including  emergency  contracts, 
which are not exempted from this obligation.  

In  order  for  the  contracting  authorities  to  be  aware  of  this  obligation  with  regard  to 
emergency procurement during COVID-19 pandemic, the State Public Procurement Advisory 
Board  (“Junta  Consultiva  de  Contratación  Pública  del  Estado”)  adopted  in  April  2020  an 
Information  Note which clearly states that the  exemption  of  certain requirements  in  case of 
emergency  procedures  does  not  apply  to  the  obligations  regarding  the  publication  of  the 
award and formalization of the contract. 

Regarding the information that must be published about each contract, the note of the State 
Public Procurement Advisory Board establishes that it should include those aspects which are 
relevant  based  on  the  particularities  of  the  emergency  procurement,  making  reference 
expressly to the need to include the justification of the procedure chosen, among other issues, 
so that control and supervisory bodies and also potential competitors are allowed to check if 
the requirements for using this special procedure were met in the corresponding contract. 

102 

 
 
This  note  also  reminds  the  contracting  authorities  that  the  award  and  formalization  of  the 
emergency contracts must be published also in the corresponding official journals, not being 
exempted either from this obligation.  

In  addition  to  the  above,  the  Independent  Office  for  the  Regulation  and  the  Supervision  of 
Public  Contracts  issued  several  special  reports  on  the  transparency  and  publicity  of 
emergency procurement during COVID-19 pandemic, as a result of which the publications of 
emergency contracts significantly increased. 

Q.5 Have you ensured that the reporting of irregularities, in particular non-fraudulent, 
for the 2014-2020 programming period is closely monitored? 

☒YES, fully implementing the recommendation 

If you implemented fully the recommendation, could you indicate which procedures you 
have put in place? Which was the outcome of these new procedures? 

All  the  relevant  authorities  reported  that  the  reporting  of  non-fraudulent  irregularities  has 
been monitored similarly to previous years and in particular similarly to programming period 
2007-2013,  thus  suggesting  that,  in  those  cases  where  the  number  of  non-fraudulent 
irregularities  reported  in  programming  period  2014-2020  has  decreased  in  comparison  to 
those  reported  in  programming  period  2007-2013  -this  is  not  the  case  in  all  the  reporting 
authorities-, this could be due to other reasons as highlighted in the PIF Report, as there is 
no evidence that this decrease is due to a worse performance in non-fraudulent irregularity 
reporting. 

1.28.  Sweden 

Q.1.  Have  you  ensured  that  verification  and  monitoring  measures  are  kept  at  a  high 
level? 

☒YES, fully implementing the recommendation 

If  you  implemented  fully  the  recommendation,  could  you  indicate  how  this  was 
achieved?  Can  you  share  any  specific  finding  in  relation  to  such  measures?  Have 
detections increased, decreased or remained stable overall? 

The  Swedish  Competition  Authority  (SCA)  is  the  supervisory  authority  for  the  public 
procurement regulations. The authority’s task is to work for efficient competition and effective 
public procurement for the benefit of the public and economic operators on the market. This 
is mainly done by exercising supervision over public procurement. The supervisory activities 
include  reviewing,  investigating,  and  adopting  decisions  in  regard  to  whether  contracting 
authorities or entities (authorities) have followed the procurement regulations.  

A  total  of  18,379  procurement  procedures  were  initiated  in  accordance  with  procurement 
regulations  in  Sweden  2019.  The  simplified  procedure  is  the  most  commonly  used 
procurement  procedure.  Most  public  contracts  run  for  3–4  years  (including  any  extension 
options). In 57 per cent of all procedures, 1–3 tenders are submitted. The average number of 
tenders submitted in 2019 was 4.5. The average number of tenders submitted has decreased 
for several years prior to 2018 and 2019.  

103 

 
 
Of  all  procurement  procedures,  6.6  per  cent  were  subject  to  a  review  procedure  in  2020. 
Directive-compliant  procurement  is  subject  to  a  review  procedure  more  often  than 
procurement  not  governed  by  the  EU  public  procurement  directives.  Procedures  with  many 
tenderers are subject to a review procedure more often than procedures that have only a few 
tenderers. (Statistik om offentlig upphandling 2020 (konkurrensverket.se) 

Q.2  Have  you  ensured  that  emergency  procurement  is  used  on  the  basis  of  a  case-by-
case assessment? 

☒YES, fully implementing the recommendation 

If you implemented fully the recommendation, could you indicate which procedures you 
have put in place to achieve that?  

The National Agency for Public Procurement launched a guidance paper presenting its views 
on procurement  and changes to  the contract  terms that the procurement rules allow during 
Swedish: 
the 
https://www.upphandlingsmyndigheten.se/nyheter/nyheter-2020/upphandling-i-akuta-
situationer 

COVID-19 

pandemic 

available 

(only 

in 

For  information  on  public  procurement  in  the  event  of  extreme  urgency,  see  LOU 
(2016:1145) 
swedish-public-procurement-act.pdf 
(konkurrensverket.se) 

Chapter 

Section 

15. 

6, 

Q.3 Have you already completed the transition to e-procurement processes?  

☒YES, fully implementing the recommendation 

Q.4 Have you taken any measures to further strengthen transparency in the use of EU 
funds, in particular in relation to emergency procurement?  

☒YES 

If yes, could you specify which ones and how they strengthen the existing transparency 
framework? 

The National Agency for Public Procurement offers guidance on anti-corruption measures at 
a  strategic  level  and  measures  at  different  phases  of  the  procurement  process.  It  defines 
corruption  as  the  abuse  of  one’s  position  to  achieve  undue  advantage  for  one’s  own  or 
someone  else’s  gain;  this  includes  conflicts  of  interest.  More  information  can  be  found  on 
their web: Förebygg korruption vid offentlig upphandling | Upphandlingsmyndigheten 

Q.5 Have you ensured that the reporting of irregularities, in particular non-fraudulent, 
for the 2014-2020 programming period is closely monitored? 

☒YES, fully implementing the recommendation 

104 

 
 
If you implemented fully the recommendation, could you indicate which procedures you 
have put in place? Which was the outcome of these new procedures? 

The  Swedish  Council  for  the  Protection  of  the  Europeans  Union’s  Financial  Interests  (the 
SEFI Council) has studied the authorities'  reports of suspected crime to follow up how well 
the Council's reporting policy (zero tolerance) is implemented. Another aim was to follow up 
on  whether  the  SEFI  Council's  guidelines  for  handling  suspected  crime  (administrative 
support) need to be revised. 

105