COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT Accompanying the document REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL Final evaluation of the Regulation (EU) No 250/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 2014 establishing a programme to promote activities in the field of the protection of the financial interests of the European Union (Hercule III programme) and repealing Decision No 804/2004/EC
Date: 2021-12-16
Institutions: European Anti-Fraud Office, European Commission
Subjects: EU financing, EU programme, corruption, cross-border cooperation, fraud, fraud against the EU, illicit trade, money laundering

EN 

  EN 

   EUROPEAN COMMISSION  Brussels, 16.12.2021  SWD(2021) 386 final  COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT           Accompanying the document REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL Final evaluation of the Regulation (EU) No 250/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 2014 establishing a programme to promote activities in the field of the protection of the financial interests of the European Union (Hercule III programme) and repealing Decision No 804/2004/EC {COM(2021) 809 final}  
 
 
Table of contents 

1. 

2. 

3. 

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

BACKGROUND .................................................................................................................................. 6 

IMPLEMENTATION / STATE OF PLAY ........................................................................................ 19 

4.  METHOD............................................................................................................................................ 26 

5.  ANALYSIS AND ANSWERS TO THE EVALUATION QUESTIONS .......................................... 29 

6. 

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS .............................................................................. 60 

ANNEX 1 - PROCEDURAL INFORMATION ........................................................................................... 68 

ANNEX 2 - STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION – SYNOPSIS REPORT .............................................. 71 

ANNEX 3 - METHODS AND ANALYTICAL MODELS ......................................................................... 88 

ANNEX 4 - LIST OF ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS ................................................................. 90 

ANNEX 5 - GLOSSARY ............................................................................................................................. 91 

ANNEX 6 - EXTERNAL EVALUATION SUPPORT STUDY.................................................................. 92 

1 

 
 
1. 

INTRODUCTION 

The Hercule III programme was one of the operational programmes implemented by the 
Commission  under  the  2014-2020  multiannual  budget.  It  was  a  key  component  of  the 
EU’s  two-pronged  action  to  protect  its  financial  interests:  at  EU  level,  internal  control 
practices,  audits  and  the  investigations  from  the  European  Anti-Fraud  Office  (OLAF) 
seek  to  ensure  value  for  money  and  combat  fraudulent  practice  and  irregularities.  In 
parallel, the EU supports Member States in multiple ways in their work to protect the EU 
budget at national level, including with material support. The Hercule III programme was 
the vehicle to provide that support for anti-fraud work over the last financing period.  

The  EU  budget  for  the  subsequent  multiannual  period  2021-2027  has  increased 
substantially. An evaluation of the Hercule III programme can feed in important lessons 
to the successor programme, the EU’s new anti-fraud programme (UAFP). It mirrors the 
overall approach of Hercule III, but adapts it to the ever-changing fraud landscape. 

Article  13(2)(b)  of  Regulation  (EU)  No  250/20141  mandates  the  Commission  (with 
OLAF as lead department) to evaluate the Hercule III programme. This Commission staff 
working  document  accompanies  the  Commission  report  on  the  achievement  of  the 
objectives of the Hercule III programme. 

1.1. 

Purpose and scope of the evaluation 

The  purpose  of  the  final  evaluation  is  to  analyse  the  performance  of  the  now  finalised 
Hercule  III  programme  through  a  retrospective,  evidence-based  qualitative  and 
quantitative  assessment.  The  aim  is  to  establish  to  what  extent  the  programme  and  the 
projects  it  funded  can  be  considered  successful,  and  what  lessons  can  be  learnt  for  the 
future  implementation  of  its  successor  programmes.  Article  34  of  the  2018  Financial 
Regulation2 states that programmes and activities that entail significant spending must be 
subject to both prior and post evaluations, which must be proportionate to the objectives 
and expenditure.  

1  Regulation  (EU)  No 250/2014  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  26 February  2014 
establishing a programme to promote activities in the field of the protection of the financial interests of 
the  European  Union  (Hercule  III  programme)  and  repealing  Decision  No 804/2004/EC,  OJ  L  84  of 
20.3.2014. 

2     Regulation (EU, Euratom) 2018/1046 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 July 2018 
on the  financial rules applicable to the general budget of the Union, amending Regulations (EU) No 
1296/2013, (EU) No 1301/2013, (EU) No 1303/2013, (EU) No 1304/2013, (EU) No 1309/2013, (EU) 
No 1316/2013, (EU) No 223/2014, (EU) No 283/2014, and Decision No 541/2014/EU and repealing 
Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 966/2012, OJ L 193, 30.7.2018, p. 1. 

2 

 
 
                                                           
The aim of this evaluation is also to comply with internal control framework principle 12 
(previously  internal  control  standard  143):  ‘the  organisation  deploys  control  activities 
through policies that establish what is  expected and in procedures that put policies into 
action.’ 

The scope, as  set  out  in  the  evaluation  roadmap4, is  to  evaluate the performance of the 
programme and to what extent its results will sustain in the longer term. It looks at five 
evaluation  criteria:  relevance  of  all  the  programme  objectives;  (internal  and  external) 
coherence  of  the  programme;  effectiveness  in  attaining  its  objectives  and  expected 
results, including the sustainability of certain types of actions; the efficiency of the use 
of resources; the programme's added value to the EU and to society.  

The evaluation takes into account the findings of the 2017-2018 Hercule III mid-term 
evaluation5, and data from the annual overviews on implementation of the  programme, 
annexed  to  the  Commission  annual  reports  on  the  protection  of  the  EU’s  financial 
interests  (PIF  Reports)  based  on  Article  325  of  the  Treaty  on  the  Functioning  of  the 
European  Union  (TFEU).  The  timeframe  for  the  evaluation  is  the  seven-year  period 
between  1 January 2014  and  31 December 2020,  including  preparatory  legislative  and 
implementing activities. 

The  main  stakeholders  for  this  evaluation  are  the  programme  beneficiaries  and 
applicants,  in  particular  national  and  regional  administrations  in  the  Member  States; 
participants to conferences, seminars and training events organised with financial support 
from  the  programme;  partners  that  could  have  an  overview  of  action  taken  under  the 
programme:  the  Advisory  Committee  for  the  Coordination  of  Fraud  Prevention 
(COCOLAF6),  the  Anti-Fraud  Coordination  Service  (AFCOS,  a  national  service 
designated  by  each  Member  State  to  facilitate  cooperation  and  information  exchange 
with OLAF, including exchange of information of an operational nature), the Network of 
Associations of European criminal  law,  academic institutions  and  relevant  Commission 
departments. 

3      https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/info/files/about_the_european_commission/eu_budget/revision-internal-
control-framework-c-2017-2373_2017_en.pdf; SEC(2007) 1341, 16.10.2007 – Annex 1: Internal 
Control Standards for Effective Management.    

4  The roadmap for the final evaluation of Hercule III was open for stakeholder feedback for four weeks 
between  15 
following  website: 
https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/better-regulation/have-your-say/initiatives/12435-Fraud-prevention-final-
evaluation-of-the-Hercule-III-Programme-2014-20-_en. 

July  2020,  accessible  on 

June  2020  and  13 

the 

5  Commission  staff  working  document  (SWD(2018)  3  final,  10.1.2018)  and  Report  from  the 

Commission to the European Parliament and to the Council (COM(2018) 3 final, 10.1.2018). 

6  COCOLAF  coordinates  how  the  European  Commission  and  its  Member  States  go  about  combatting 
fraud  involving  EU  money.  OLAF  coordinates  COCOLAF  on  behalf  of  the  Commission.  The 
participants are representatives from Member State authorities and from Commission departments. 

3 

 
                                                           
 
Certain  projects  that  started  in  2020  –  when  possible,  given  that  the  COVID-19 
pandemic  prevented  physical  meetings  at  certain  moments  –  are  still  ongoing.  The 
Commission  will  report on grant  agreements  and most procurement  contracts  signed in 
2020 and on their effects at a later stage (2021 and onwards). 

This  evaluation  covers  all  current  and  previous  EU  Member  States,  including 
unsuccessful applications submitted by potential beneficiaries.  

The Commission will draw on the results of this evaluation when preparing future annual 
work programmes, and when monitoring the EU’s new anti-fraud programme. It adopted 
the first annual work programme under the UAFP for 2021 by means of a Commission 
implementing decision on 23 July 20217. 

1.2. 

Policy context 

The protection of the EU’s financial interests (PIF) has to be seen in the broader political 
and  policy  context,  which  includes  the  institutional  architecture  governing  anti-fraud 
action that is currently undergoing a significant change.  

The  expansion  of  the  European  Union  in  2004  and  2007  led  to  a  strengthened 
coordination of national anti-fraud activities. The objective of the Hercule I programme 
was  to  ensure  an  equivalent  and  efficient  level  of  protection  of  the  EU’s  financial 
interests  and  to  support  the  exchange  of  best  practice.8  In  line  with  this  objective, 
national anti-fraud coordination services (AFCOS) were set up in all Member States.  

In 2011, the Commission adopted the anti-fraud strategy9, which was revised in 2019. 
The  strategy  applies  to  all  Commission  departments  and  executive  agencies.  It  sets  out 
the general objectives of policy action to combat fraud. Its main goals are to adapt anti-
fraud measures to address today’s challenges; to increase the amount of recovered funds 
affected by fraudulent activities; and to  enhance cooperation between EU bodies in  the 
fight against fraud and corruption.  

Since  2012,  the  Commission  encourages  Member  States  to  adopt  national  anti-fraud 
strategies,  which  should  contain  anti-fraud  measures  and  policies  and  thereby 

7  Commission  Implementing  Decision  on  the  financing  of  the  union  anti-fraud  programme  and  the 

adoption of the work programme for 2021 (C (2021) 5338 final, 23.07.2021). 

8  Communication  from  the  Commission  on  the  implementation  of  the  Hercule  programme  and  its 

extension during the period 2007-2013, COM(2006) 339 final, 28.6.2006. 

9  Communication  from  the  Commission  to  the  European  Parliament,  the  Council,  the  European 
Economic  And  Social  Committee,  the  Committee  of  the  Regions  and  the  Court  of  Auditors  from 
29.04.2019  on  the  Commission  Anti-Fraud  Strategy:  enhanced  action  to  protect  the  EU  budget 
(SWD(2019) 170 – 171 final, 29.4.2019; COM(2019) 196 final, 29.4.2019). 

4 

 
                                                           
contribute  to  combating  fraud  both  on  national  and  EU  levels.10  According  to  the 
latest  PIF  report11  on  anti-fraud  measures  taken  by  the  Member  States  in  2020,  the 
situation  on  national  anti-fraud  strategies  has  improved  since  by  the  end  of  2020,  14 
Member States12 had adopted national strategies. 

In  June  2021,  the  European  Public  Prosecutor’s  Office  (EPPO)  became  operational. 
Based on Council Regulation (EU) 2017/1939 (EPPO Regulation)13, the EPPO was set up 
to  conduct  criminal  investigations  in  respect  of  crimes  affecting  the  EU’s  financial 
interests. The crimes falling within the material competence of the EPPO are defined in 
the  Directive  on  protection  of  the  European  Union’s  financial  interests  by  means  of 
criminal  law14  (PIF  Directive).  Not  all  Member  States  have  decided  to  join  the  EPPO. 
Therefore,  different  forms  of  cooperation  between  the  EPPO,  OLAF,  and  national 
judicial and administrative authorities will have to be established. 

Although  tangible  progress  has  been  achieved  over  the  last  two  decades,  the  level  of 
protection of the EU’s financial interests among Member States remains uneven. This is 
due to factors such as differing enforcement priorities, technical capacity, the level of PIF 
awareness, the geographical location (especially on the revenue side), the wealth of the 
Member State and related resources they allocate to police and justice administrations, as 
well as differing levels of fraud and corruption.  

Hercule  III,  and  now  the  EU’s  anti-fraud  programme  (UAFP),  support  the  transition 
towards  the  new  institutional  landscape  by  funding,  for  instance,  training  and 
conferences. By integrating the main IT tools, the anti-fraud information system (AFIS) 
and the irregularities management system (IMS), into its scope, the UAFP is even better 
placed to support the multiple bodies involved in this work at national level.  

10  Commission staff working document, implementation of Article 325 TFEU by the Member States in 
2019,  accompanying  the  31st  Annual  Report  on  the  protection  of  the  European  Union's  financial 
interests - Fight against fraud – 2019 (COM(2020) 159 final, SWD(2020) 159 final, 3.9.2020). 

11  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, 20.9.2021). 

12  Austria, Bulgaria, Croatia, Czech Republic, France, Greece, Hungary, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Malta, 

Portugal, Slovakia, Sweden. 

13  Council Regulation (EU) 2017/1939 of 12 October 2017 implementing enhanced cooperation on the 

establishment of the European Public Prosecutor’s Office, OJ L 283, 31.10.2017, p. 1–71. 

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

5 

 
                                                           
2. 

BACKGROUND  

2.1.  Hercule III - description and intervention logic 

The  concept  of  protecting  the  EU’s  financial  interests  covers  prevention,  detection  and 
investigation  of  fraud  against  the  EU’s  budget  and  can  extend  to  measures  to  address 
other serious irregularities.  Action to  protect  the financial interests  covers the whole of 
the  expenditure  side  of  the  EU  budget.  On  the  revenue  side,  action  mainly  covers 
‘traditional own resources’15. 

The Hercule programme was specifically designed to protect the EU’s financial interests 
by providing financial support to Member States and other relevant bodies in combating 
irregularities, fraud and corruption that are a risk to the EU budget. It was administered 
by the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF), part of the European Commission. The first 
Hercule  programme16  was  established  in  2004  by  Decision  No 804/2004/EC.  The 
Hercule II programme was established in 2007 by Decision No 878/2007/EC17, which 
extended the scope to cover cigarette smuggling and counterfeiting. In 2014, Regulation 
(EU) No 250/201418 established the Hercule III programme for 2014-2020.  

Following  calls  for  proposals,  the  eligible  beneficiaries  for  technical  assistance  and 
training  under  the  programme  were  national  or  regional  administrations  of  Member 
States, educational institutes and non-profit-making entities established and operating in 
a Member State for at least one year. The participation of administrations from non-EU 
countries  was  subject  to  an  agreement  between  the  non-EU  country  concerned  and  the 
European Union on participation in EU programmes. For the duration of the Hercule III 
programme, no such agreement specifically for this programme had yet come into force. 

15  EU  traditional  own  resources  for  the  2014-2020  EU  budget  were  mainly  customs  duties  and  sugar 

levies, defined in Article 2(1) (a) of the 2014 Own Resources Decision.  

16  Decision 804/2004/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 April 2004, establishing a 
Community action programme to promote activities in the field of the protection of the Community's 
financial interests (Hercule programme), OJ L 143 of 30.4.2004, p. 9-14. 

17  Decision No 878/2007/EC of the European Parliament and the Council of 23 July 2007 amending and 
extending  Decision  No  804/2004/EC  establishing  a  Community  action  programme  to  promote 
activities in the field of the protection of the Community's financial interests (Hercule II programme), 
OJ L 193, 25.7.2007, p. 18-22. 

18  See footnote 1. 

6 

 
                                                           
2.2.  The 2011 Hercule III impact assessment – identified drivers 

The December 2011 impact assessment accompanying the Commission proposal for a 
regulation establishing the Hercule III programme identified five key drivers to address. 
Linked to the five drivers, the impact assessment identified nine specific problems19. 

-  Key  driver  1:  fraudsters  adapt  quickly  to  new  circumstances  at  EU  level,  operate 
across borders and exploit the weakest points. Linked with problems 1, 2, 3, 6 and 7. 
-  Key  driver  2:  the  Commission  and  Member  States  have  committed  themselves  to 
stepping up the fight against cigarette smuggling. Linked with problems 1, 2, 5 and 9. 
-  Key driver 3: pressure on public finances require increasingly cost-efficient ways to 
protect  the  EU’s  financial  interests  through  improved  detection  and  prevention. 
Linked with problems 1, 4 and 5. 

-  Key driver 4: the vast majority of anti-fraud resources are at national level, in many 

and varied competent authorities. Linked with problems 6, 7 and 8. 

-  Key driver 5: differences in incentives and capacity between Member States impede 
equivalence in the protection of financial interests. Linked with problems 6 and 9. 

-  Problem  1:  how  to  develop  specialist  knowledge  and  deploy  state-of-the-art 
technical  equipment  to  modernise  prevention,  detection  and  investigation  work  to 
protect the EU budget? 

-  Problem  2:  how  to  respond  to  the  rapid  development  in  organised  crime  in  key 

sectors such as cigarette smuggling and counterfeiting? 

-  Problem 3: how to maintain public confidence in the EU given the rise in challenges 
to good governance and public finance ethics from past and prospective  expansions 
and the continued increase in EU expenditure in high-risk non-EU countries? 

-  Problem 4: lack of sufficient awareness and expertise to prevent and detect fraud on 

an EU scale. 

-  Problem  5:  insufficient  and/or  ineffective  use  of  risk  analysis  and  information 

sharing about fraud patterns at EU level. 

-  Problem 6: shortcomings in the ability and/or willingness of competent authorities to 

cooperate among themselves and/or with OLAF. 

-  Problem 7: difficulties in setting up information exchange mechanisms and tools that 
enable standardised, interconnected and efficient transnational anti-fraud cooperation. 
-  Problem 8: lack of a uniform administrative and judicial environment to investigate 

and prosecute EU budget fraud. 

-  Problem 9: gaps in the skills, experience and sharing of best practice among national 

competent authorities. 

19  Commission staff working document – impact assessment accompanying the proposal for a regulation 
of the European Parliament and of the Council on the Hercule III programme to promote activities in 
the field of the protection of the EU financial interests (SEC(2011)1610 final, p. 10, 19.12.2011). 

7 

 
 
                                                           
Based on these identified problems, the general objective of the Hercule III programme 
was ‘to protect the financial interests of the Union thus enhancing the competitiveness of 
the  Union's  economy  and  ensuring  the  protection  of  taxpayers'  money’20.  The 
programme’s  specific  objective  was  ‘to  prevent  and  combat  fraud,  corruption  and  any 
other  illegal  activities  affecting  the  financial  interests  of  the  Union,  including  cigarette 
smuggling and counterfeiting’21.  

In  addition,  to  provide  solutions  to  the  problems  identified,  the  programme  had  five 
operational objectives as listed in Article 5 of Regulation (EU) No 250/2014:  

a)  to  improve  the  prevention  and  investigation  of  fraud  and  other  illegal  activities 
beyond current levels by enhancing transnational and multidisciplinary cooperation;  
b)  to increase the protection of the EU’s financial interests against fraud by facilitating 
exchanges of information, experiences and best practice, including staff exchanges;  
c)  to  step  up  the  fight  against  fraud  and  other  illegal  activities  by  providing  technical 
and  operational  support  to  national  investigations,  in  particular  to  customs  and  law 
enforcement authorities;  

d)  to  limit  the  currently  known  exposure  of  the  EU’s  financial  interests  to  fraud, 
corruption and other illegal activities with a view to reducing the development of an 
illegal  economy  in  key  risk  areas  such  as  organised  fraud,  including  cigarette 
smuggling and counterfeiting;  

e)  to  step  up  the  development  of  specific  legal  and  judicial  protection  of  the  EU’s 

financial interests against fraud by promoting comparative law analysis. 

Lastly, reporting by Member States on irregularities and suspected fraud cases detected 
during the implementation of the budget, and reported on the basis of Article 325 TFEU, 
showed that the detrimental impact on the EU budget over the years remained at a 
level  that  required  the  EU  to  maintain  this  work  to  protect  the  EU  budget.  Figure  1 
overleaf  illustrates  the  programme’s  overall  intervention  logic,  as  described  above  and 
with a breakdown by type of action, including the planned outputs, results and impacts. 

20  Article 3 of Regulation (EU) No 250/2014. 

21  Article 4 of Regulation (EU) No 250/2014. 

8 

 
                                                           
Figure 1 – General intervention logic of the Hercule III programme 

9 

 
 
2.3. 

Intervention logic per type of Hercule III action 

2.3.1.  Technical assistance (see Figure 2 below) 

Financial support from the programme under technical assistance  enabled the purchase 
of: 

- 

- 

technical equipment, investigation tools and methods with training provided for staff 
to operate such tools; devices and animals to carry out inspections;  training courses; 
automated systems for the recognition of vehicle number plates and container codes; 
training to operate such tools; 

access  to  databases  with  information  on  trade  flows,  ship-manifest  data,  container 
traffic  and  company  information,  as  well  as  services  to  support  Member  States  in 
storing and destroying seized cigarettes and other counterfeit goods; and the chemical 
analysis of samples from tobacco and cigarette seizures. 

2.3.2.  Training and conferences, seminars and digital forensics (Fig. 3) 

The  programme  funded  the  organisation  of  conferences,  seminars,  courses,  workshops, 
ad  hoc  training  and  staff  exchanges  to  exchange  experience  and  good  practice  between 
competent  authorities.  The  aim  was  to  disseminate  knowledge  on  how  to  identify  risk 
factors and increase knowledge of the PIF Directive22.  

The  programme  provided  support  for  digital  forensics  training  courses,  including 
launching  a  quality  assurance  process  and  certification  procedure  for  digital  forensics 
experts (‘DFAT’: digital forensic analysis training), and creating a network of experts. 

2.3.3.  Legal training and studies (Figure 4) 

The programme  funded  the  organisation  of regular high-profile research  activities, such 
as conferences, seminars and workshops to improve cooperation between academics and 
practitioners; scientific publications and dissemination of knowledge among the judiciary 
(prosecutors,  judges  and  court  staff)  and  other  legal  professions  (lawyers,  barristers, 
solicitors,  notaries,  bailiffs).  For  example,  it  funded  an  external  study23  to  identify  an 
(April  2020).
approach 

tobacco  products 

illicit  market 

to  measure 

the 

for 

22  See footnote 15. 

23  Study to identify an approach to measure the illicit market for tobacco products – Final report, RAND 
Europe, April 2020, published by the European Commission (OLAF.B.1); https://op.europa.eu/s/sDtj 

10 

 
 
                                                           
Figure 2 – Intervention logic – Technical assistance: financial support to purchase  equipment and services needed by national authorities for 
investigations 

11 

 
 
 
Figure 3 – Intervention logic - Training for law enforcement staff to boost operational and investigative capacity to run PIF investigations 

12 

 
 
 
Figure 4 – Intervention logic – Support for conferences and legal studies to develop academic research into PIF at EU and national levels 

13 

 
2.4. 

Input of resources, expected results and impact 

Over the period 2014-2020, the Commission managed a budget of EUR 104.9 million for 
the  Hercule  III  programme,  with  an  annual  average  of  commitments  between  EUR  14 
and 17 million, disbursed in the form of grants and procured services.  

The programme provided financial support to several types of activities that come under 
three broader areas of action24: 

1.  Technical  assistance  (at  least  70%  of  the  programme's  budget  –  through  grants), 
providing  national  authorities  with  financial  support  to  acquire  specific  knowledge, 
equipment  and  information  technology  tools  and  to  acquire  access  to  specific 
databases and IT tools that facilitate data collection and analysis.  

The aim of the technical assistance was to obtain the following results: 

- 

- 

- 

successful seizures, confiscations and recoveries following joint action and cross-
border operations; 

technical equipment used properly to generate sustainable added value (at least for 
the normal – variable – life span of the equipment);  

information  exchanged  among  Member  States  on  the  results  achieved  with  the 
technical material. 

2.  Training  (maximum  25%  of  the  programme's  budget  –  through  grants  and 
procurement),  to  help  fund  the  organisation  of  targeted  specialised  training,  risk 
analysis workshops, conferences and legal studies. 

The expected results of the training initiatives were to increase awareness among the 
judiciary  (prosecutors,  judges  and  court  staff)  and  the  legal  profession  (lawyers, 
solicitors,  barristers,  bailiffs)  about  the  protection  of  the  EU’s  financial  interests,  to 
increase  digital  expertise  and  to  train  participants  on  evidence-based  policies  and 
legislation to protect the EU budget. 

The expected results of the legal training were also to create and increase knowledge 
about the fight against fraud and to continue the exchange of good practice, as well as 
to improve as far as possible the coordination of exchanges between practitioners and 
academics. 

24  Article 8 of Regulation (EU) No 250/2014. 

14 

 
 
                                                           
3.  Any other action (maximum 5% of the budget): other types of action provided for in 
the  annual  work  programmes,  as  necessary  to  achieve  the  programme’s  general, 
specific and operational objectives. 

Under  this  category,  the  programme  funded  action  such  as  a  2015  ‘Eurobarometer’ 
survey (updated July 2019)25 on public opinions, attitudes and behaviour in the EU on 
cigarette  smuggling  and  the  consumption  of  smuggled  cigarettes.  It  also  funded  the 
development of evidence-based policies and legislation to contribute to better policy-
making. 

The overall expected impact of the programme is a significant and lasting contribution to: 

- 
- 

- 

an effective protection of the EU’s financial interests; 
ensuring the competitiveness of the EU’s economy (for example by strengthening the 
competitiveness of European businesses by tackling and eradicating illegal economic 
circuits wherever possible) and protecting public finances; 
ensuring a continued and reliable protection of taxpayers’ money, maintaining public 
confidence that fraud and corruption are being tackled. 

2.5.  External factors that affected the programme’s achievement 

2.5.1.  Positive external factors that affected the delivery of results and achievement 
of objectives 

Technical assistance projects were found to have a number of positive external effects. 
The evaluation showed that, based on the assessment of achievements, the acquisition of 
modern  equipment  produced  a  number  of  positive  effects  that  are  not  among  the 
programme’s primary objectives, but nevertheless benefit the national authorities.  

One of the main positive external effects identified was that the equipment purchased to 
perform border checks had proven useful to detect, for example, illegal drugs or illegal 
weapons.  Evidence  from  the  case  studies  also  indicates  the  usefulness  of  equipment  in 
seizing illegal substances or artefacts that do not primarily jeopardise the EU’s financial 
interests but pose a more general security threat to EU Member States. 

Evidence from the assessment of achievements and from the 16 case studies suggests that 
technical equipment increased the health and safety of customs and police officers. The 
purchase  of  more  modern  scanners  minimised  the  risk  to  radiation  exposure.  Modern 

25  Special  Eurobarometer  443  –  ‘Public  perception  of  illicit  tobacco  trade’,  survey  conducted  by  TNS 
opinion  &  social  at  the  request  of  the  European  Commission,  European  Anti-Fraud  Office. 
Coordinated  by  the  European  Commission,  Directorate-General  for  Communication  (Strategy, 
Corporate  Communication  Actions  and  Eurobarometer  Unit).  Publication:  July  2016;  Fieldwork: 
November-December  2015.  https://ec.europa.eu/anti-fraud/public-perception-illicit-tobacco-trade_en. 
Updated Eurobarometer survey, July 2019: https://europa.eu/eurobarometer/surveys/detail/2191 

15 

 
                                                           
communication  and  surveillance  equipment  helped  officers  monitor  criminal  activities 
while staying undetected and at a safe distance. 

Figure 5 – Unexpected or unintended knock-on effects of the programme - example 

The  purchase  and  use  of  specialised  equipment  funded  by  the  programme  had 
unexpected or unintended knock-on effects in terms of enhancing the health and 
safety  of  users.  The  new  equipment  improved  the  overall  working  environment. 
Refurbishing work stations also improved the comfort and functionality of work 
places  for  staff,  increasing  at  the  same  time  the  safety  and  quality  of  stored 
evidence and equipment. 

 Negative  external  factors  that  affected  the  delivery  of  results  and 

2.5.2. 
achievement of objectives 

The  evaluation  identified  two  possible  negative  effects  that  could  have  affected  the 
delivery of results and achievements.  
-  Administrative  capacity.  The 

the 
administrative burden can hinder the uptake of applications from Member States that 
may not have the same organisational capacity. 

lack  of  national  resources 

to  manage 

This  can  be  linked  to  the  lack  of  clarity  regarding  decisional  responsibilities  in  the 
Member States. 

-  Lack  of  legislative  support.  One  EU-level  interviewee  noted  that  customs  units 
uncovered an increase in the illegal traffic of raw tobacco. But, as raw tobacco is not 
covered  by  the  EU  excise  system,  it  was  often  not  possible  for  the  enforcement 
services  to  analyse  collected  or  seized  samples  of  illegal  raw  tobacco,  which  made 
(criminal) investigations into the origins of seized raw tobacco difficult. 

This  legal  gap  may  relate  to  issues  that  are  being  identified  in  the  monitoring  and 
control system applied to the raw tobacco supply chain. The Commission is currently 
carrying out an impact assessment related to excise duties legislation26.  

2.6.  Baseline and points of comparison  

The baseline provides a point of comparison against which the Commission will evaluate 
the  implementation  of  the  Hercule  III  programme.  It  takes  account  of  the  impact 
assessment of the Hercule III Regulation and the evaluation of Hercule II (the preceding 
programme). 

26  Legislative  initiative  to  review  Council  Directive  2011/64/EU  of  21  June  2011  on  the  structure  and 
rates of excise duty applied to manufactured tobacco. The inception impact assessment is available at: 
https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/better-regulation/have-your-say/initiatives/12645-Tobacco-taxation-
excise-duties-for-manufactured-tobacco-products-updated-rules-_en  

16 

 
 
                                                           
2.6.1.  The 2011 impact assessment of the Hercule III Regulation 

The 2011 Commission proposal for a regulation establishing the Hercule III programme 
was based on an impact  assessment.27 The assessment found that the positive impact  of 
the Hercule II programme was not fully reached at the time (2011), in part because some 
Member  States  were  unable  to  co-finance  Hercule  II  projects,  especially  in  terms  of 
procuring technical equipment.  

Notably  on  the  eastern  and  southern  fringes  of  the  EU,  the  affected  areas  were  those 
where  there  was  the  greatest  common  interest  to  strengthen  the  control  of  the  EU’s 
borders  against  smuggling  or  transnational  fraud.  In  response,  the  Commission 
increased the maximum funding rate in co-financed activities from 50% to 80% in the 
Hercule III programme. 

The maximum co-financing rate can be exceptionally raised from 80% to 90% for very 
specific projects that meet at least two of the following criteria: i) they take place at an 
external EU border; ii) they take place at the most vulnerable locations; iii)  they reflect 
the  results  of  the  Eurobarometer  survey  of  public  attitudes  to  counterfeited,  smuggled 
cigarettes and ‘cheap whites’; and iv) they reflect the findings of the 2014 report on the 
protection of the EU’s financial interests.   

2.6.2.  Final evaluation of the 2015 Hercule II programme 

The  2015  ex  post  evaluation  of  Hercule  II  found  that  the  support  granted  to  Member 
States  was  largely  positive  and  led  to  better  transnational  and  multidisciplinary 
cooperation between authorities in their work to protect the EU’s financial interests. The 
programme contributed to strengthening the operational and investigative capacity of its 
main beneficiaries, such as police forces, customs authorities and other law enforcement 
agencies.  

The  evaluation  also  found  that  the  effectiveness  of  the  programme  could  be  even 
greater  by  facilitating  more  personal  contacts  between  stakeholders,  for  example, 
through staff exchanges.  It  also  highlighted the need to  strengthen the reporting on the 
programme’s  activities,  and  monitoring  of  results.  These  findings  were  echoed  in  the 
mid-term evaluation of Hercule III. 

27  COM staff working document, SEC(2011) 1610 final, 19.12.2011, p. 38. 

17 

 
                                                           
2.6.3.  The January 2018 Hercule III mid-term evaluation report 

In January 2018, the Commission published its mid-term evaluation report of Hercule 
III28 covering the period 2014-2017. The evaluation identified similar problems to those 
listed in the 2011 impact assessment, in particular: 

-  gaps in  skills,  expertise and  the sharing of best  practices among national competent 

- 

authorities; 
information  exchange  mechanisms; 
lack  of  standardised  and 
cooperation among authorities as well as a lack of awareness and expertise to prevent 
and detect fraud; 

interconnected 

-  gaps in developing specialist knowledge and technologies to fight fraud, in improving 
the use of risk analysis and information sharing, and in responding to developments in 
organised crime; 

-  differences among Member State systems to investigate and prosecute fraud. 

The mid-term evaluation also demonstrated that, at that stage (end 2017), the programme 
had  fulfilled  its  mission.  It  had  proven  relevant,  with  mechanisms  in  place  to  ensure 
coherence,  and  it  had  been  effective  and  efficient.  There  was  a  clear  added  value  in 
continuing to  run  a  programme  at  EU level,  and  its activities  were  found  to  be  broadly 
sustainable.  The  evaluation  report  also  contained  suggestions  for  improvements,  in 
particular in terms of cross-border cooperation between Member States, cooperation 
with non-EU partners and new technological developments.    

With regard to training, the mid-term evaluation concluded that only a few projects had 
involved  staff  exchanges  between  national  administrations  and  few  involved 
international participation. 

2.6.4.  The July 2018 UAFP inception impact assessment 

When  comparing  the  situation  between  2011  (impact  assessment  for  the  Hercule  III 
programme) and 2018 (the impact assessment29 for the EU’s new anti-fraud programme 
(UAFP)30), the main issues that the initiatives aimed to tackle were largely similar. Fraud 
undermining the EU’s financial interests remained a prevalent issue. 

In  2016,  19 080  fraudulent  and  non-fraudulent  irregularities  were  reported  to  the 
Commission,  involving  a  total  of  approximately  EUR  2.97  billion.  1 410  irregularities 
were reported as fraudulent, involving EUR 391 million, covering both expenditure and 

28  Staff working document (2018) 3 final, 10.1.2018. 

29  See the impact assessment for Hercule III, accompanying the proposal for a regulation establishing the 

union anti-fraud programme: SWD(2018) 294 final, 30.5.2018. 

30  Regulation (EU) 2021/785 of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing the  union anti-

fraud programme, OJ L 172/110, 17.5.2021, p. 110-122. 

18 

 
                                                           
revenue.  Although  this  was  an  improvement  compared  to  2015,  the  sheer  volume  of 
identified fraud and irregularities remained high. 

Most  of  the  key  drivers  of  fraud  identified  in  the  inception  phase  of  the  Hercule  III 
programme remained relevant when the impact assessment was carried out for the UAFP. 
In  particular,  the  capacity  of  fraudsters  to  adapt  quickly  and  operate  across  borders  to 
exploit the weakest points had not noticeably diminished. Pressure on public finances is 
even higher today, requiring the Commission and the Member States to protect the EU’s 
financial interests by stepping up detection and prevention work.  

Lastly,  the  differences  in  incentives  and  capacity  between  Member  States  persist  and 
result in an uneven protection of the financial interests within the EU. 

3. 

IMPLEMENTATION / STATE OF PLAY 

3.1.  Administrative implementation 

Following the  final  evaluation of  the  Hercule  II  programme, some changes were  made. 
Hercule  III  integrated  IT  support  into  the  scope  for  technical  assistance  and  brought  in 
stricter  reporting  requirements  for  beneficiaries.  It  also  brought  in  an  annual  overview 
with information on the results of the Hercule III programme, i.e. an annual report by the 
Commission on actions and results of the Hercule III programme.  

Another major change was the increase of the co-financing rate under technical assistance 
actions,  from  50%  (Hercule  II)  to  80%  (Hercule  III)  of  all  eligible  costs.  Financial 
support was available in the form of grants, public procurement or reimbursement of the 
cost of participation in activities under the programme. 

The Commission financing decisions with the annexed annual work programmes ensured 
that the  general,  specific and  operational  objectives of the Hercule  III  programme were 
implemented in a consistent manner. They outlined the outputs and the expected results, 
the methods of implementation and total amount (input, available budget per sector, list 
of the calls for proposals to be published and the contracts to be concluded). 

Once  the  Commission  had  adopted  the  financing  decision  and  made  available  the 
financial  resources,  it  published  calls  for  proposals  (e.g.  for  technical  assistance, 
conferences,  legal  training  and  studies).  The  proposals  submitted  by  Member  State 
authorities or other eligible applicants were then evaluated according to the selection and 
award criteria. 

Every year, from 2014 to 2020, the Commission launched three calls for proposals: one 
for  technical  assistance,  one  for  legal  training  and  studies  and  one  for  training, 
conferences and staff exchanges. In 2020, following requests from applicants, in view of 
their organisational challenges during the COVID-19 crisis, the Commission extended the 
deadline for the three calls for proposals by 3-4 weeks, depending on the type of call. 

19 

 
The Commission implemented the Hercule III programme by issuing grants following the 
calls for proposals.  It  entered into  public procurement contracts  (for purchasing  (access 
to) databases, organising conferences and (specialised) training, plus the development of 
specific  IT  tools)  following  calls  for  tender  and  administrative  arrangements  concluded 
with  the  European  Commission’s  Joint  Research  Centre  (JRC)  for  the  development  of 
specific tools.  

As  of  November  2021,  OLAF  registered  280  finalised  projects  out  of  336  granted 
projects  (83.3%).  For  a  project  to  be  considered  finalised,  the  technical  and  financial 
reports have  to  be submitted and the final  payment  made, which is  some time after the 
project ends. 

3.2.  Monitoring implementation of the programme 

The  programme  is  monitored  through  annual  implementation  reports  that  the  European 
Commission  submits  to  Parliament  and  to  the  Council.  The  reports  present  input  and 
output  indicators  on  the  use  of  the  budget,  the  number  of  actions  carried  out,  the  main 
results achieved, information on cooperation and coordination between the Commission 
and  the  Member  States,  and  insights  in  terms  of consistency  and  complementarity  with 
other programmes. 

The annual  implementation  report is a Commission  staff working  document  annexed  to 
the  annual  PIF  report.  The  European  Parliament’s  Committee  on  Budgetary  Control 
(CONT  Committee)  issues  its  opinion  on  the  PIF  report  by  the  end  of  each  year.  The 
Commission carefully takes account of the observations for the following years. 

Four  key  performance  indicators  (KPI)  are  used  to  measure  the  achievement  of  the 
programme’s specific objective31, ‘to prevent and combat fraud, corruption and any other 
illegal activities affecting the financial interests of the Union’: 

a)  information on seizures carried out by joint actions and cross-border operations; 
b)  added value of technical equipment funded under the programme; 
c)  (the number of) information exchanges among Member States; and, 
d)  the number and type of (specialised) training. 

Beneficiaries of the actions must report on the results achieved. The method for reporting 
differs  according  to  the  type  of  action  (technical  assistance  and  training).  For  technical 
assistance grants, the results are first reported in a ‘final technical report’ issued after the 
request for final payment of the grant. Results are also reported in a ‘final implementation 
report’  submitted  one  year  after  the  final  date  of  the  grant  agreement.  The  reporting 
condition  is  set  out  in  the  annual  work  programme,  specified  in  the  calls  for  proposals 
and required by the grant agreement.  

31  Article 4 of Regulation (EU) No 250/2014. 

20 

 
                                                           
Beneficiaries  of  training  grants  must  submit  a  ‘final  technical  report’  with  the  main 
results  of  surveys  held  among  the  participants  to  assess  the  relevance  of  the  event  and 
user satisfaction, as set out in the calls for proposals and required by the grant agreement. 
As of 2017, grant beneficiaries must organise a ‘post-event survey’ six months after the 
event took place to measure the mid-term impact, in particular in relation to the use of 
the skills acquired during the training course and the effect of networking.  

For  procurement-based  activities,  conferences  and  training  initiatives,  the  beneficiaries 
must run user satisfaction surveys following these events. For contracts for the purchase 
of access to databases,  monitoring the results of the actions takes a different form: the 
Commission  receives  detailed  information  on  how  the  different  users  make  use  of  the 
databases. 

The findings  based on the beneficiaries' reports  in  both  the technical  assistance and the 
training  reports  are  included  in  the  annual  overviews  on  implementation  of  the 
programme and are used as input to estimate the KPI32. The Commission also monitored 
the  identified  and  reported  impacts  of  the  programme  through  information  contained  in 
grant beneficiaries or contractors’ final technical reports. These covered success stories, 
the  results  achieved  with  the  activities  funded  and  the  contribution  they  made  to 
protecting the EU’s financial interests. 

3.3. 

Implementation figures 2014-2020 

The  budget  available  for  Hercule  III  was  only  slightly  bigger  than  for  the  Hercule  II 
programme (EUR 98.5 million for Hercule II for 2007-2013, compared to approximately 
EUR 104.9 million for Hercule III for 2014-2020).  

Figure 6 - Annual commitments Hercule III - 2014-202033 (actual figures) 

Year  Commitment appropriations (in euro)  Payment appropriations (in euro) 

2014 

2015 

2016 

2017 

2018 

2019 

2020 

Total 

13 677 700 

14 067 100 

14 542 300 

14 950 000 

15 347 500 

15 891 200 

16 443 100  

104 918 900 

11 004 993 

12 385 254 

19 307 530 

13 244 989 

13 255 186 

16 064 692 

15 321 445 

100 584 089 

32  Article 4 of Regulation (EU) No 250/2014. 

33    Source: OLAF - Annual overview with information on the results of the Hercule III programme as part 
of  the  annual  reporting  by  the  Commission  to  the  European  Parliament  and  to  the  Council  on  the 
protection of the European Union's financial interests - Fight against fraud. 

21 

 
                                                           
Applications for Hercule III grants were consistently over the level of grants available to 
award  over  the  period  2014–2019.  In  particular,  applications  for  technical  assistance 
grants are very competitive, with a peak in 2014, when only 25% of all applications were 
successful. The average success rate of applications for technical assistance is 33%, while 
on average 43% of all applications for anti-fraud training are successful.  

On average 51% of applications for legal training and studies are awarded a grant. Thus, 
in all three areas, only half or fewer than half of all applicants can proceed with their 
suggested  projects,  showing  that  the  Hercule  III  programme  is  successful  and  relevant 
for applicants, with the high co-financing rate of grants being an incentive to apply. No 
more than 5% of the budget can be spent on other types of action. They include funding 
studies that are not directly related to anti-fraud or legal issues, or in some circumstances, 
support  for  nationals  from  non-EU  countries  to  participate  in  workshops  or 
conferences. The special Eurobarometer survey from July 2016 (updated, July 201934) on 
public perception of illicit tobacco trade was also funded under ‘other types of action’. 

Figures 7-8-9 - Number of grant applications and grants awarded per type of action 

90

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

Technical Assistance Grants

83

79

72

53

42

43

21

17

23

22

20

13

47

29

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

Applications received

Grants awarded

Source: OLAF own data on Hercule III applications. 

The number of applications received fluctuated  over the programme’s lifespan. Hercule 
III,  compared  to  the  previous  Hercule  II  programme,  increased  the  maximum  co-
financing rate in technical assistance (from 50% in the previous programme to up to 90% 
of the total cost). This triggered a high interest from Member State authorities in applying 
for  funding  in  the  first  three  years.  The  increased  interest  combined  with  the  limited 
amount of funding available under the programme led to the Commission having to reject 
a  high  number  of  proposals  due  to  insufficient  funds.  This  is  likely  to  have  been  the 

34 https://europa.eu/eurobarometer/surveys/detail/2191 

22 

 
 
                                                           
reason  for  a  gradual  decrease  in  the  applications  received  for  the  following  years, 
stabilising at around 40-50 technical assistance applications per year.  

45

40

35

30

25

20

15

10

5

0

25

20

15

10

5

0

Anti-fraud Training Grants
42

29

28

33

36

12

13

13

17

15

19

8

10

13

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

Applications received

Grants awarded

Legal Training Grants

22

20

16

18

13

8

8

10

9

5

6

5

21

11

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

Applications received

Grants awarded

For applications for funding training, where the maximum co-financing rate remained as 
in  the  previous  Hercule  II  programme  (80%,  with  an  exceptional  rate  of  90%),  the 
number of applications  varied between  17  and 42 for  anti-fraud  training  and between 6 
and 22 for legal training, with no obvious explanation for these fluctuations. 

The  Hercule  III  calls  were  publicised  in  a  similar  way  each  year,  through  existing 
networks and channels, on OLAF’s website and through Official Journal announcements. 
Starting  with  2017,  the  calls  were  also  published  on  the  Commission’s  ‘Funding  and 
tenders’ portal, increasing visibility for the targeted stakeholders. 

All  Member  States  are  eligible  for  funding  under  Hercule  III.  The  evaluation  found  – 
based on publicly  available aggregated data under ‘technical assistance’  and ‘anti-fraud 

23 

 
 
 
training  &  legal  studies’  during  the  past  funding  period  of  2014-2020  –  that  some 
Member States obtained relatively more funding under Hercule III than others.  

Technical  assistance  actions  are  (more)  concentrated  in  Member  States  that  have  an 
external border to the east, as well as some coastal states such as Spain and Ireland.  

The cause of this possible inequity between the 28/27 Member States is likely to be due 
to  multiple  reasons.  In  some  cases  it  may  be  linked  to  the  geographical  location  of  the 
Member State;  in  others  it is  not  immediately identifiable, such as for example the low 
participation rate of Denmark, Austria or the United Kingdom. 

In some circumstances, projects run in non-EU countries may also receive funding from 
Hercule III. Costs incurred for persons from non-EU countries to participate in an event 
funded under the programme, such as conferences, seminars or training sessions, can be 
considered eligible for funding under certain conditions. In such instances, the funds are 
mainly  used  to  organise  conferences,  workshops,  or  training  in  order  to  strengthen 
cooperation with the EU and support capacity building of tax authorities in those non-
EU  countries.  This  includes  coordination  of  activities  of  participating  countries  and 
representatives of international organisations with the aim of exchanging experience and 
best  practice  between  authorities,  developing  high-profile  research  and  conducting 
studies. Figure 10 shows all non-EU countries in which projects were run. 

Figure 10 - Non-EU countries in which (training and conferences) projects were run 
that received funding under Hercule III 

Source:  OLAF  -  Annual  overviews  with  information  on  the  results  of  the  Hercule  III  programme  as  part  of  the  annual 
reporting  by  the  Commission  to  the  European  Parliament  and  to  the  Council  on  the  protection  of  the  European  Union's 
financial interests - Fight against fraud. 2014-2019 (PIF Reports). 

3.4.  Costs and benefits of the programme for the stakeholders 

The  main  direct  benefit  of  the  programme  related  to  technical  assistance  actions  was 
the purchase of technical assistance equipment and the provision of innovative tools. As a 

24 

 
 
 
result, 14 out of the 80 respondents to the survey noted that the new equipment had led to 
increased  detection  rates  and,  by  default,  an  increase  in  the  number  of  seizures.  This 
finding was similar to the finding under training, where the development of research and 
knowledge building produced the greatest benefit.  

The  programme  also  generated  indirect  benefits  in  the  form  of  strengthening 
collaboration  and  cooperation  between  and  within  Member  State  authorities  and 
stakeholders,  and  the  exchange  of  best  practice.  Considering  the  costs  and  benefits 
incurred/accrued by stakeholders, most applicants stated in the survey that the benefits 
of  the  programme  outweighed  the  costs.  In  addition,  several  stakeholders  highlighted 
that, for technical assistance projects, the value of goods seized often exceeded the initial 
value of the contract awarded by the programme. This was also seen in the case studies in 
Poland, where the value of a single seizure made possible through Hercule-funded tools 
covered the entire investment cost of the project. 

A few interviewees highlighted several contextual factors that can affect the balance 
between costs and benefits.  In particular, one partner organisation  highlighted that the 
programme  budget  had  not  taken  into  account  the  rise  in  staff  costs  over  the  funding 
period, thus in comparison with other funding opportunities, the  programme can appear 
relatively more restrictive.  

The  next  figure  shows  the  difference  between  the  average  maximum  amounts  to  be 
awarded and the average amounts finally requested and received per type of action.  

Figure 11 - Average amounts awarded and requested by type of action35 

Type of action 

Average maximum amount 
to be awarded in EUR 

Average maximum amount 
requested and received (EUR) 

Technical assistance 

Anti-fraud training and 
Legal training & studies 

492 589 

70 550 

484 215 

55 221 

On average, the beneficiaries of technical assistance actions request payment to a level of 
around  88%  of  the  maximum  awarded  grant  amounts.  The  beneficiaries  of  training 
actions requested on average only 73% of the maximum amount awarded. The reason 
for the difference between the maximum amount awarded and the amounts requested are 
corrections  or  cost  adjustments  that  are  proposed  either  by  OLAF  or  by  the 
beneficiaries when submitting the final financial reports. 

35  The requested amounts are derived from the final financial reports submitted by the beneficiaries at the 
end of the projects.  Source: Ramboll data, based on a sample of projects taken,  Interim Report, May 
2021, Table 5.22, p. 178. 

25 

 
                                                           
4. 

METHOD 

4.1. 

Short description of methodology 

To complement its work, the European Commission  commissioned  a study  to  underpin 
this  evaluation.  The  external  study  was  carried  out  between  October  2020  and  October 
2021  by  RAMBOLL  Management  Consulting  S.A./N.V.,  in  a  consortium  with  London 
Economics (UK) and Università Cattolica (Milano, IT). The conclusions of the study are 
set out in the final report36. 

An  inter-service  steering  group  of  Commission  departments37  was  set  up  to  steer  the 
evaluation  process.  The  group  reviewed  the  roadmap38,  the  terms  of  reference  for  the 
external contract, and the inception, interim and final reports. 

In  June  2020,  the  European  Commission  launched  an  online  public  consultation  on  the 
evaluation  roadmap.  It  did  not  attract  any  responses,  probably  because  the  programme 
targets a specific and specialised audience. The Commission did not run an open public 
consultation  on  this  stage  of  the  evaluation  as  the  primary  beneficiaries  are  national 
administrations that were contacted via targeted surveys.  

The  evaluation  is  based  on  information  from  a  selection  of  98  projects  funded  by  the 
programme.  The  information  was  obtained  through  desk  research  and  targeted 
consultations of internal and external stakeholders through interviews and  three specific 
surveys  (to  beneficiaries  and  unsuccessful  applicants  of  technical  assistance;  to 
participants  of  funded  events;  and  to  users  of  the  databases  procured).  Further  detailed 
information  on  the  external  study  methodology  can  be  found  in  Annex  3  to  this  staff 
working document and in Appendix 5 to the study’s final report (the synopsis report).  

Data were collected through desk research and literature review, online interviews for 16 
case  studies  in  eight  selected  Member  States,  and  during  online  meetings  with 
stakeholders from the EU institutions and external partners associated to the programme.  

The replies to the evaluation questions are based on two data sources: 

Primary data. This includes data collected specifically for the evaluation via: 

-  online  interviews  with  Commission  staff;  national  institutions  active  in  fraud 
prevention and the protection of the EU's financial interests, as well as beneficiaries 
of actions funded under the programme; 

36  https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/3d9c63bd-4da3-11ec-91ac-01aa75ed71a1   

37  With  officials  from  OLAF,  the  Commission’s  Secretariat-General,  DG  TAXUD,  DG  JUST,  DG 

BUDG and the Commission’s Legal Service. 

38  The  evaluation  roadmap  was  published  by  the  Commission’s  Secretariat-General  between  15  June 

2020 and 13 July 2020: no feedback was received from the public. 

26 

 
                                                           
- 

targeted online surveys with beneficiaries of projects funded during the  programme; 
unsuccessful applicants; participants in events; and users of services procured under 
the programme, in particular database users. 

Secondary data. This includes data collected by examining: 

-  public  sources,  such  as  the  text  of  the  Regulation  and  supporting  documents  (the 
Commission  proposal  as  adopted  in  2011,  together  with  the  impact  assessment); 
Hercule  III  annual  work  programmes;  Hercule  III  annual  implementation  reports; 
Article 325  reports;  the  final  evaluation report  and interim reports of the Hercule  II 
programme, legal acts underpinning other EU programmes39; 

-  documentary  evidence  on  applications  for  grants  (application  forms),  contracts  and 
final 
reports, 

reports  and 

technical 

financial 

final 

grants  awarded 
(final 
implementation reports); 

-  quantitative information on implementation of the annual work programmes, such as 
the  budget  and  the  number  of  grants/contracts,  broken  down  by  type  of  action  and 
Member State as collected from the annual implementation reports. 

4.2.  Analysis of data and results 

The  primary  and  secondary  data  gathered  by  RAMBOLL  was  analysed  using  several 
methods,  including  descriptive  statistical  analysis  (closed  questions  in  the  online 
surveys), quantitative data analysis  techniques (case studies, economic analysis), and 
qualitative  data  analysis  (desk  research,  interviews  and  open  questions  in  online 
surveys).  

The  evaluation  question  matrix40  was  a  key  tool  for  the  analysis,  which  follows  the 
structure of the  evaluation questions and related  indicators to  facilitate  cross-checking 
and  matching  of  results.  Checked  and  confirmed  data  were  used  to  respond  to  the 
evaluation questions as listed in the evaluation question matrix.  

The collected primary and secondary data were verified and confirmed at the level 
of  the  evaluation  criteria,  comparing  and  contrasting  the  results  of  different  data 
sources.  The  data  were  used  to  identify  and  analyse  the  overall  achievement  of  the 
programme’s  objectives,  their  continued  relevance,  programme  efficiency  and  the 
sustainability (effect) and added value of the programme at EU level. 

In  using  triangulation  to  provide  answers  to  the  evaluation  questions  and  sub-questions 
put  forward  in  the  evaluation  matrix,  the  principle  is  that  a  hypothesis  set  out  in  the 
intervention logic  can only be confirmed if different types of stakeholder support it 

39     Such as the Customs 2020 programme, the Fiscalis 2020 programme or the ‘internal security fund’. 

40  See  the  Final  Evaluation  Report  of  the  Hercule  III  programme,  Appendix  1  -  Evaluation  Question 
https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/3d9c63bd-4da3-11ec-91ac-

Matrix: 
01aa75ed71a1   

27 

 
                                                           
and different data sources provide relevant evidence. The synthesis was built on the 
findings and fed into the development of robust conclusions and recommendations, and 
the final study report. The results of this analysis are presented in the appendices41 to the 
final study report.  

4.3.  Limitations  to  the  methodology,  mitigating  measures  and  robustness  of 
findings 

The lifecycle of a programme like Hercule III is such that it takes some time, at the end of 
the programme, to identify and obtain results for the most recent projects. This limits the 
input available for a final evaluation, considering that in 2020 many (physical) activities 
had to be suspended due to the pandemic. 

Another  limitation  is  that,  although  most  data  are  fully  available  for  most  projects,  for 
other (types of) projects, the information has been difficult to collect in practice. Due to 
restricted  physical  access  to  offices  in  the  OLAF  premises  during  the  COVID-19 
pandemic,  the  final  project  reports  were  not  available  for  all  100  initially  selected 
projects.  The  incomplete  project  files  were  replaced  by  other  projects  according  to  the 
selection  criteria  set  out  in  the  inception  report.  The  final  sample  totalled  98  instead  of 
100 projects. This did not affect the findings of the study. 

The  number  of  respondents  to  three  targeted  online  survey  consultations  appeared 
unbalanced both in the number of addressees contacted (partly lacking private data such 
as email addresses) and in the number of (completed) surveys returned to the consultant. 

Lessons  learnt  from  past  evaluations.  The  study  on  the  mid-term  evaluation  in  2017-
2018 found that beneficiaries had difficulties providing the data to measure the key 
performance indicators (‘KPI’)  laid down in Article 4 of the Regulation (information 
on  seizures  carried  out  by  joint  actions  and  cross-border  operations;  added  value  of 
technical equipment; and, information exchanges among Member States). 

The collection of data to measure these indicators is  reportedly the most burdensome 
aspect  of  the  reporting  phase.  The  reports  to  feed  the  KPIs  therefore  provided  only 
relatively limited input into the mid-term evaluation of the programme. 

Figure 12 – Alleviating the issue of data collection issue under the new UAFP 

The  EU’s  anti-fraud  programme  (successor  of  Hercule  III)  addressed  the  monitoring 
limitation  by  including  a  dedicated  Annex  II  on  monitoring  indicators  for  the  programme. 
The adopted annual work programme for 2021 contains detailed information on the expected 
results  from  technical  assistance  projects,  together  with  indicators  that  will  enable  the 
Commission to monitor these results and the added value and effective use of the co-financed 
technical equipment. 

41  See footnote 40, Appendices 1 to 3. 

28 

 
 
                                                           
5. 

ANALYSIS AND ANSWERS TO THE EVALUATION QUESTIONS 

The  analysis  was  conducted  against  the  evaluation  criteria  of  relevance,  effectiveness 
(including  sustainability),  efficiency,  coherence  (both  internal  and  external),  and  EU 
added value. 

5.1.  Relevance of the programme 

The assessment of relevance explores the degree to which the programme proves relevant 
to  protect  the  financial  interests  of  the  EU,  and  the  extent  to  which  it  is  able  to  tackle 
current and future problems and needs faced by stakeholders. 

In  understanding  the  programme’s  overall  relevance,  it  is  important  to  examine  the 
context42 in which it operates and the current and future challenges it aims to tackle. For 
the present purposes, that is notably the level of fraud to the detriment of the EU budget 
on both the expenditure and the revenue side. 

Every year, the Commission reports to the European Parliament on irregularities related 
to the EU’s financial interests reported by the Member States. The Commission prepares 
the Report on the Protection of the Union’s Financial Interests (the ‘PIF report’). 

Protecting  the  EU’s  financial  interests  is  a  shared  responsibility  of  the  European 
institutions and the Member States.  

Member  States  contribute  to  the  largest  share  of  the  EU  budget,  collect  the  traditional 
own  resources  on  behalf  of  the  EU,  and  also directly  manage  about  two  thirds  of its 
expenditure  (mainly  cohesion  policy  funding,  agricultural  and  fisheries-related 
expenditure).  Under  Article  325  TFEU,  Member  States  take  the  same  measures  to 
counter fraud affecting the EU’s financial interests as they take to counter fraud affecting 
their own financial interests.  

In  2020,  the  number  of  reported  cases  in  comparison  with  the  five-year  average 
decreased  for  both  fraudulent  and  non-fraudulent  irregularities  related  to  EU 
revenue. The related amount increased for fraudulent irregularities but decreased for 
non-fraudulent irregularities43. 

42  See Appendix 3 of the final evaluation report by RAMBOLL for details. 
43  Commission  staff  working  document  -  Statistical  evaluation  of  irregularities  reported  for  2019:  own 
resources,  agriculture,  cohesion  and  fisheries  policies,  pre-accession  and  direct  expenditure  - 
accompanying the 31st Annual Report on the protection of the European Union's financial interests  - 
Fight  against  fraud  –  2019  (SWD(2020)  160  final,  3.9.2020,  Annex  2);  and  the  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, 20.09.2021, 
Chapter 6.1.2, page 31 and Annex 1. 

29 

 
                                                           
Figure  13  -  Revenue:  irregularities  detected  by  Member  States  -  traditional  own 
resources (reported in 2020) 

Budget sector 

Traditional own 
resources 

Fraudulent 
irregularities 

N 

EUR 
(million) 

Non-fraudulent 
irregularities 

FDR44 

IDR45 

N 

EUR (million) 

% 

% 

451 

108 

4  003 

382 

0.43% 

1.54% 

Figure 14 – Trends and variations in reported cases 

As concerns revenue, the overall situation in 202046 appears 
to be less affected by the COVID-19 pandemic than could 
have  been  expected,  with  the  number  of  cases  reported  as 
fraudulent  or  non-fraudulent  and  of  the  related  amounts 
within the usual range of annual fluctuations. However, the 
impact of COVID-19 on the Member States varies.  

Inspections  by  anti-fraud  services  was  the  most  successful 
method  of  detecting  fraudulent  cases  and  related  amounts 
in 2020. 

Most cases reported in 2020 as fraudulent or non-fraudulent 
affecting  EU  revenue  relate  to  undervaluation,  incorrect  classification  or  wrong 
description of goods or smuggling.  

Footwear, textiles, vehicles, electrical machinery and equipment were the types of goods 
most affected by fraud and irregularities in terms of number of cases and monetary value. 

Compared to the number of cases detected and reported in previous years, the number of 
cases  of  fraudulent  irregularities  reported  in  2020  (451)  is  comparable  to  2019  but  the 
financial  impact  is  higher,  with  EUR  107.8  million  involved,  compared  to  EUR  80 
million in 2019 (+35%). The number of detected cases has steadily decreased from 600+ 
in 2014 to 451 in 2020. These figures indicate the need to maintain the programme. 

Between  2015  and  2020,  the  number  of  reported  irregularities  (fraudulent  and  non-
fraudulent)  related  to  EU  expenditure  for  the  programming  period  2007-2013 
decreased.  The  number  of  cases  linked  to  the  next  period  2014-2020  have  been 

44  The FDR is the fraud detection rate: the ratio of financial amounts related to fraudulent irregularities on 

the total payments made. 

45  The  IDR  is  the  irregularity  detection  rate:  the  ratio  of  financial  amounts  related  to  non-fraudulent 

irregularities on the total payments made. 

46  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, 20.09.2021, Chapter 6.1.2, page 31 and onwards. 

30 

 
 
                                                           
increasing, consistently with each implementation cycle. Reported irregularities related 
to annual spending (direct aid to farmers and market support measures) remained stable. 

The EU and its Member States share the responsibility for protecting the EU’s financial 
interests and for fighting fraud. Member State authorities manage three quarters of EU 
expenditure and collect the EU’s traditional own resources. The Commission oversees 
both of these areas, sets standards and verifies compliance. 

The  European  Commission’s  annual  reports  on  the  protection  of  the  EU’s  financial 
interests  detail  the  measures  taken  at  European  and  national  level  to  counter  fraud 
affecting the EU budget. These reports are based on information from the Member States, 
including data on detected irregularities and fraud.  

The  number  of  irregularities  reported  as  fraudulent  (including  cases  of  suspected  or 
established fraud) and the associated amounts are not a direct indicator of the level of 
fraud  affecting  the  EU  budget.  They  primarily  indicate  the  level  of  detection  and 
reporting of potential fraud by Member States and EU bodies. However, analysing this 
information helps to assess the overall level of fraud, identify the areas most at risk, and 
thereby help target action at both EU and national level. 

In 2019, a total 939 irregularities (514 on the expenditure side, 425 on the revenue side 
of  the  budget)  were  reported  as  fraudulent  (i.e.  8%  of  all  irregularities  detected  and 
reported), involving about EUR 461 million (28% of all reported financial amounts were 
affected by irregularities) and covering both expenditure and revenue.  

The  numbers  reported  in  2019  and  their  monetary  value  decreased  significantly 
compared to 2018.  

Looking  at  a  five-year  period  (2015-2019),  the  number  of  reported  fraudulent 
irregularities  was  40%  less  than  in  2015,  and  25%  below  the  five-year  average.  The 
financial impact fluctuates substantially, as it is skewed by individual cases involving 
large sums. 

In 2019, the Commission was notified of 10 787 irregularities (6 550 on the expenditure 
side,  and,  4 237  on  the  revenue  side  for  traditional  own  resources)  reported  as  non-
fraudulent  (similar  to  2018).  The  financial  amounts  involved  decreased  by  8%  to 
approximately EUR 1.2 billion. 

In  2020,  the  financial  value  of  detected  fraud  against  the  EU  budget  continued  to  fall 
according  to  the  2020  PIF  report,  adopted  by  the  European  Commission  on 
20 September 2021.  The  1 056  fraudulent  irregularities  (451  on  traditional  own 
resources and 605 on expenditure) reported in 2020 had a combined financial impact of 
EUR  374  million  (EUR  108  million  –  own  resources;  EUR  266  million  - 
expenditure), around 20% fewer than in 2019 and continuing the steady decrease seen 

31 

 
over the last five years. The number of reported non-fraudulent irregularities remained 
stable, but fell in value by 6%, according to the report47. 

Over  the  last  five  years,  the  number  of  reported  irregularities  (fraudulent  and  non-
fraudulent) related to EU expenditure for the programming period 2007-2013 decreased, 
while those linked to the 2014-2020 EU budget have increased, consistently with the 
implementation cycles. Reported irregularities related to annual spending (direct aid to 
farmers and market support measures) remained stable. 

Organised  crime  is  a  significant  threat  to  the  European  public,  to  business  and  to  state 
institutions, as well as to the economy as a whole. Organised crime groups operate across 
all  EU  Member  States  and  use  their  large  illegal  profits  to  infiltrate  the  legal  economy 
and  public  institutions,  including  via  corruption.  They  erode  the  rule  of  law  and 
fundamental rights, and undermine people’s right to safety as well as their trust in public 
authorities. Fraud is becoming increasingly appealing for organised crime.  

Combating the illicit tobacco trade is an important component of the EU policy to protect 
the  EU’s  financial  interests.  Its  effects  go  beyond  the  finances  though,  since  the  illegal 
tobacco trade also affects the EU security and health. Throughout 2020, the Commission 
continued implementing the second action plan to combat illegal tobacco trade48.  

The work to combat the illicit tobacco trade, which had featured prominently in activities 
supported  by  Hercule  III,  is  also  illustrative  of  the  difficulties  in  measuring  the 
prevalence  of  fraud,  even  in  a  single  sector.  Several  studies  have  attempted  to  measure 
the true scale of illicit tobacco markets, including a 2020 external study financed by the 
Hercule  III  programme49.  This  study  discussed  the  methodological  difficulties  in  detail, 
and only with those caveats suggested that counterfeit and contraband consumption could 
account  for  8%  of  total  consumption  in  2018  and  that  there  were  approximately  43.6 
billion counterfeit and contraband cigarettes in Europe in 2019, all of which evaded taxes 
and customs duties.  

The 2018 mid-term evaluation50 of the Hercule III programme gives a similar picture in 
terms  of  the  context.  The  evaluation  demonstrated  that  the  programme’s  specific  and 

47    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, 20.09.2021. 

48  Commission  Communication,  Second  Action  Plan  to  fight  the  illicit  tobacco  trade  2018-2022 

(COM(2018) 846 final, 7.12.2018). 

49  Study  to  identify  an  approach  to  measure  the  illicit  market  for  tobacco  products  –  Final  report, 
Chapters  3.1-3.3,  RAND  Europe,  April  2020,  published  by  the  European  Commission  (OLAF.B.1). 
https://op.europa.eu/s/sDtj. 

50  CEPS  et  al.  (2017).  Mid-term  Evaluation  of 

the  Hercule  III  programme,  Final  report: 

https://ec.europa.eu/anti-fraud/sites/antifraud/files/herculeiii_midterm_evaluation_en.pdf 

32 

 
                                                           
operational  objectives  and  activities  remained  relevant.  It  noted  that  the  rationale 
underlying  the  programme  was  still  appropriate  and  no  additional  adjustments  were 
required to account for current problems affecting the financial interests of the EU.  

The  findings  of  the  current  evaluation  are  in  line  with  the  2018  findings,  with  a  large 
majority of stakeholders stating that both the specific objective and operational objectives 
were highly relevant in terms of protecting the EU’s financial interests. The programme’s 
specific objective  was found to be the most relevant  by  an average of 83% respondents 
across all three surveys.  

In particular, operational objective 3 on stepping up the fight against fraud by providing 
technical  and  operational  support  to  national  authorities,  ranked  the  highest  (80%)  in 
terms  of  relevance.  Crucially,  the  interviews  also  confirmed  that  the  operational 
objectives will remain relevant in the future. Respondents found operational objective 
2 on the exchange of information and operational objective 3 on providing technical and 
operational support to national authorities to be particularly relevant. 

The  programme  was  viewed  as  highly  relevant  in  addressing  the  main  problems  of 
stakeholders  related  to  the  protection  of  the  EU’s  financial  interests.  In  the  applicants’ 
survey, 101 out of 126 (80%) answered that the  programme was relevant to address the 
main problems they faced in combating fraud over the period 2014-2020, and they noted 
that Hercule III was the only programme specifically designed to tackle fraud and illicit 
activity  across  the  EU.  Respondents  considered  the  programme  relevant  because  it 
complemented the work carried out at Member State level to combat fraud.   

Figure 15 – Example of the Programme’s relevance from the case study findings  

Case-study example - Latvia* 

The  programme’s  relevance  was  underlined  in  the  projects  in  this  case  study. 
Beneficiaries  primarily  highlighted  its  ability  to  help  tackle  the  high  costs  of 
purchasing  equipment,  limited  available  national  budgets,  and  the  need  for 
improved  data  quality  and  analysis.  By  financing  each  of  the  projects,  the 
programme  had  a  strong  relevance  in  tackling  national  and  EU  level  fraud,  by 
boosting capacity and evidence that national level institutions can use to effectively 
identify and limit the spread of fraud.  

*This  case  study  included  an  analysis  of  two  technical  assistance  projects  for  two  separate  Latvian  national 
authorities involving the strengthening of the technical capacity of investigative departments and capacity building 
for forensic examination.  

Evidence  from  the  case  studies  and  interviews  found  that,  while  most  Member  States 
have  their  own  national  strategy  to  fight  fraud,  the  programme  provided  additional 
support  that  they  could  access  quickly,  allowing  national  authorities  to  reach  their 

33 

 
 
national  objectives  faster.  These  findings  correspond  with  the  2011  impact  assessment 
and the 2018 mid-term evaluation. The following needs remain relevant since the 2011 
impact assessment:  

- 

the  need  to  tackle  the  increased  technological  capacity  of  criminals  involved  in 
illicit activities (outlined in pink in the overview chart overleaf, Figure 16);  
the need for up-to-date technical support (outlined in blue);  

- 
-  gaps in knowledge and the sharing of best practices (outlined in green); and,  
-  problems in creating a harmonised approach across all Member States in the fight 

against fraud (outlined in yellow). 

Figure 16 - Overview of the main needs and drivers - areas of continued relevance 

The  outline  colours  shown  in  the  legend  highlight  for  each  evaluation  where  the  theme  was  mentioned.  Source: 
RAMBOLL Final Report on the evaluation of the Hercule III Programme. 

Each of the top five most salient needs identified by stakeholders (shown in green) can be 
linked to past issues uncovered in the 2011 impact assessment and previous evaluations, 
thus highlighting the recurrent needs and problems (2011-2020). 

34 

 
 
           
Data collection and analysis tools - example of good practice51 

Two  projects  for  the  analysis  of  ‘big  data’  that  were  initiated  under  the  Hercule  II 
programme continued beyond 2014 under Hercule III.  

The  automated  monitoring  tool  (AMT)  and  container  traffic  (CONTRAFFIC, 
financed by the Commission through AFIS) are projects  carried out by the  European 
Commission’s  Joint Research  Centre  under  administrative  arrangements  with  the 
Commission  (OLAF).  These  two  projects  provide  tools  to  support  investigations  that 
need  data  and  analysis  on  container  movements  (CONTRAFFIC:  current  and  past 
vessel/container  movements)  and  EU  import  and  export  flows  (AMT),  providing  more 
realistic and effective scenarios for joint customs operations.52  

In  2020,  the  AMT  tool  was  used  to  monitor  and  examine  imports  of  medical  supplies 
needed  for  the  COVID-19  pandemic.  It  was  also  used  to  assess  the  findings  from  joint 
customs  operations  carried  out  in  previous  years,  such  as  the  operation  to  identify  the 
issue of undervaluation in imports of textiles and footwear goods.53 

In 2020, OLAF and the JRC also continued with the administrative arrangement for the 
data  analysis  for  customs  anti-fraud  project  (INTEL4CUSTAF).  Funded  by  the 
Hercule III programme, the administrative arrangement was initially set up at the end of 
201754  between  OLAF  and  the  JRC  to  provide  scientific  and  technical  support  in 
advancing the EU’s customs anti-fraud data analytics capacity55. 

initiated 

following 

the  project 

from  Member  State  customs 
OLAF 
representatives, who recognised the potential of working together  with new datasets 
and  analytical  methods  to  address  the  ever-changing  world  of  customs  fraud. The 
project  scope  is  defined  by  activities  under  Council  Regulation  (EC)  No  515/9756  on 
mutual administrative assistance to ensure the correct application of customs legislation. 

requests 

51  Source: Annual overview with information on the results of the Hercule III programme accompanying 

the PIF-report, 2014, p. 8. 

52  The automated monitoring tool monitors trade flows and identifies suspicious changes in volume or the 
average price of products, enabling the detection of undervalued products and other types of customs 
fraud such as evasion of anti-dumping duties or misdeclaration of the commodity. Contraffic enables 
officers  to  detect  cases  of  false  declaration  of  origin  by  cross-checking  information  on  physical 
movements of containers with information in customs declarations.   

53  Commission  staff  working  document,  Hercule  III  programme  -  2020  implementation,  accompanying 
the 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 (SWD(2021) 257 
final, p. 20). 

54  The first administrative arrangement was signed in late December 2017, covering work carried out in 
2018,  meaning  there  is  a  one-year  lag  between  the  annual  Hercule  III  financing  decision  and  the 
associated  INTEL4CUSTAF  work  (e.g.  the  2017  Hercule  III  decision  covered  funding  for 
INTEL4CUSTAF work in 2018). 

55  This support falls under the activity defined in Article 8(a)(v) of Regulation (EU) No 250/2014. 

56  Council  Regulation  (EC)  No  515/97  of  13  March  1997  on  mutual  assistance  between  the 
administrative  authorities  of  the  Member  States  and  cooperation  between  the  latter  and  the 

35 

 
                                                           
 
The  project  is  part  of  a  wider  effort  to  provide  knowledge  and  facilitate  the  work  of 
customs  authorities  in  Member  States  for  the  effective  and  efficient  use  of  data  and 
analytical approaches in the area of customs anti-fraud. In line with the objectives of the 
Hercule III programme, the main beneficiaries of this project are Member State customs 
authorities.  The  aim  is  to  improve  the  overall  effectiveness  and  efficiency  of  customs 
anti-fraud data analysis across the EU. 

The stakeholders interviewed provided several examples of future needs where the (new) 
programme could increase its relevance. 

Figure 17 – Specific needs voiced by the stakeholders 

The AFCOS and the ‘PIF associations’ pointed out that the programme should 
place  an  increased  focus  on  expenditure  fraud.  Although  this  is  partially 
covered in the scope of the programme, the stakeholders mentioned that it could 
be more actively developed as an area of focus in the annual work programmes. 
In  many  respects,  the  need  to  focus  on  expenditure  fraud  stems  from  the 
overarching  problem  raised  by  all  stakeholders  of  the  need  to  heighten 
awareness and publicity of available EU funding opportunities. 

Linked to the need for greater awareness was the need for the programme to 
be more reactive and responsive to key risk areas as they develop each year. In 
particular,  interviews  with  Member  State  AFCOS,  applicants  and  beneficiaries 
(from  the  case  studies)  suggested  that  the  programme  could  develop  policy 
documents  including  action  plans  to  tackle  emerging  threats  such  as  food 
fraud, the (criminal or) unlawful use of drones and advances in cybercrime. 

The Regulation  establishing the  EU’s  anti-fraud  programme  (UAFP) for  the 2021-2027 
period  takes  these  needs  into  account  by  stressing  that  ‘the  protection  of  the  financial 
interests of the Union should address all aspects of the Union budget, on both the revenue 
and expenditure side’ (Regulation (EU) 2021/785, Recital 11). Expenditure fraud is also a 
special focus of the first implementing decision57 adopted in 2021. 

The  evaluation  also  found  that  the  programme  should  be  more  reactive  and  responsive 
(on  a  yearly  basis)  to  key  risk  areas  as  they  develop.  In  particular,  interviews  with 
Member State AFCOS, applicants and beneficiaries (from the case studies) suggested that 

Commission to ensure the correct application of the law on customs and agricultural matters, OJ L 82, 
22.3.1997, p. 1. 

57  Commission  Implementing  Decision  on  the  financing  of  the  union  anti-fraud  programme  and  the 

adoption of the work programme for 2021 (C (2021) 5338 final, 23.07.2021). 

36 

 
 
                                                                                                                                                                             
the programme could play a rule in implementing or potentially developing action plans, 
including on emerging threats such as food fraud, (criminal or) unlawful use of drones 
and developments in cybercrime.  

The need to adjust to new technological developments and challenges is prominent in the 
EU’s  anti-fraud  programme  (Regulation  (EU)  2021/785,  Recital  20),  and  in  the  2021 
UAFP annual work programme. 

Figure 18 – Key findings in terms of relevance 

Overall, the programme was found to be highly relevant in: 

- tackling the current challenges in the fight against fraud across Europe. The 
needs of stakeholders have not drastically changed since the initial 2011 impact 
assessment of the programme; 

-  addressing  the  financial  and  technological  gaps  by  making  the  prospect  of 
purchasing technology more realistic and achievable for national authorities.  

In  turn,  this  meant  that  the  programme  was  also  able  to  complement  the  work 
carried out at Member State level, and as one beneficiary noted – to “rationally 
and effectively achieve their overarching objectives”. 

The relevance of the programme could be further improved. Specifically, it could 
take  better  account  of  emerging  threats  and  it  could  also  place  a  greater 
emphasis on expenditure fraud and cybercrime. 

5.2.  Effectiveness 

Assessing the programme’s effectiveness looks at the progress made towards achieving 
the set objectives, whether the intended outcomes have been achieved (or are likely to 
be  achieved  in  the  future)  and  to  what  extent  the  achievements  are  sustainable.  At  a 
broader level, the analysis assessed the achievements of the programme, in relation to the 
key activities of technical assistance, (legal) training, conferences, research activities and 
studies. To that effect, dividing the criterion of effectiveness into technical assistance and 
training facilitated the assessment.  

Article 8(a) of Regulation (EU) No 250/2014 provides that technical assistance consists 
of  the  provision  of  specialised  technical  assistance  for  Member  State  authorities.  This 
includes  providing  specific knowledge, specialised and technically  advanced  equipment 
and  effective  information  technology  tools,  providing  the  necessary  support  and 
facilitating investigations conducted by Member State authorities. 

The evidence  collected  during the evaluation  indicates that  the programme continues  to 
be successful in supporting national law enforcement agencies, in line with the results of 

37 

 
 
the final evaluation of the previous Hercule II programme and the mid-term evaluation of 
the Hercule III programme. 

Overall,  there  was  broad  consensus  among  the  different  stakeholders  that  technical 
assistance actions contributed to providing support to the law enforcement authorities of 
the Member States in their work to combat illegal cross-border activities.  

In the applicants’ survey, 52 out of 60 respondents agreed to a great or to a certain extent 
that the support  provided  by the  programme  contributed to  supporting law enforcement 
agencies  in  their  work  to  combat  illegal  cross-border  activities.  The  interviewees 
confirmed  that  the  technical  assistance  was  effective  in  supporting  law  enforcement 
agencies. 

The  results  of  the  desk-based  assessment  of  achievements  suggest  that  the  programme 
helped increase both the operational and analytical capacity of law enforcement agencies.  

According to the analysis of the project reports, purchased equipment helped national law 
enforcement agencies carry out more operations, for instance by increasing the number of 
checks  at  border  crossing  points  through  scanners  or  by  enabling  them  to  operate  in 
difficult or dangerous situations due to better and safer communication equipment (such 
as surveillance equipment or IMSI-catchers58).  

The technical assistance project reports also show that the projects enabled national law 
enforcement  agencies  to  improve  the  quality  of  the  evidence  collected  using  more 
modern  technologies.  IT  systems  and  software  enabled  law  enforcement  agencies  to 
analyse a greater volume of data and thus reveal complex criminal activities.  

On the programme’s contribution to stimulate more staff exchanges for specific projects, 
the  programme  was  perceived  as  making  a  limited  contribution,  with  only  38%  of 
beneficiaries answering that the programme had contributed towards this aspect. In-depth 
interviews  conducted  at  EU  level  confirmed  this  finding  and  acknowledged  that  staff 
exchanges as part of technical assistance projects were not an area of focus.  

However, respondents  suggested that  staff exchanges could have a greater impact  as 
part  of  training  rather  than  technical  assistance  projects.  This  is  in  line  with  evidence 
from  the  Hercule  III  mid-term  evaluation  and  the  final  evaluation  of  the  Hercule  II 
programme,  which  uncovered  limited  evidence  showing  that  joint  operations  and  staff 
exchanges had increased and/or were effective. 

Minimising the risks in the key areas of cigarette smuggling and counterfeiting  

Evidence collected from an assessment of the achievements and case studies shows that 
technical  assistance  projects  were  successful  in  reducing  the  risk  of  cigarette 

58  An  international  mobile  subscriber  identity-catcher,  or  IMSI-catcher,  is  a  telephone  eavesdropping 
device used for intercepting mobile phone traffic and tracking location data of mobile phone users. 

38 

 
                                                           
smuggling and counterfeiting. The programme thus continued to focus on the key risk 
areas of cigarette smuggling and counterfeiting.  

In total, 19 technical assistance projects out of the 98 selected projects assessed were 
able to report on the quantities of seized cigarettes with the purchased equipment.  

The  project  reports  show  that  the  following  factors  helped  national  law  enforcement 
agencies reduce the risk of cigarette smuggling: 

-  modern fixed scanners enabled operators to scan more objects at border crossing 

points and produce higher quality imagery; 

-  mobile scanners and sniffer dogs enabled customs authorities to search vehicle 

- 

parts that could not have been searched without the equipment; 
surveillance  equipment  helped  law  enforcement  agencies  collect  evidence  on 
large smuggling operations and illegal cigarette production facilities. 

Interviewees from the JRC also highlighted the importance of the TOBLAB project59 at 
the  JRC  in  helping  national  law  enforcement  agencies  collect  additional  evidence  of 
cigarette smuggling patterns within Europe and worldwide.  

Overall,  there  is  comparatively  less  evidence  available  on  the  effectiveness  of 
technical  assistance  in  reducing  the  risk  of  counterfeiting  than  of  cigarette 
smuggling.   

Only four out of 19 projects60 reported on the quantities of counterfeited products seized. 
One  reason  could  be  the  nature  of  the  technical  equipment  purchased.  Interviewees  for 
one  of  the  case  studies  for  example  pointed  out  that  scanners  are  not  able  to  detect 
counterfeit  products  in  containers  per  se,  as  this  would  require  a  manual  inspection  by 
customs officers.  

However, respondents agreed to a certain or great extent that technical assistance projects 
contributed both to reducing the risk of cigarette smuggling (45 out of 60) and reducing 
the risk of counterfeiting (40 out of 60). Ultimately, law enforcement officials may also 
not  always  see  the  need  to  establish  whether  the  smuggled  product  they  have  seized  is 
genuine or counterfeit, unless there are specific reasons to do so.  

Technical assistance projects helped national law enforcement agencies cooperate better 
with other organisations and departments within their countries, but also with law 
enforcement agencies from other Member States.   

59 

JRC  operates  a  dedicated  tobacco  laboratory  (TOBLAB)  to  create  chemical  fingerprints  of  tobacco, 
which  are  processed  by  chemometric  tools  to  identify  similarities  among  tobacco  products  seized  in 
different  countries.  This  intelligence  supports  law  enforcement  actions  at  Member  State  as  well  as 
European Commission level. 

60  Out  of  the  60  technical  assistance  projects  that  were  assessed  in  terms  of  the  programme’s 
achievements,  19  projects  reported  on  quantitative  numbers  of  seizures  that  they  achieved  with  the 
purchased equipment. Not all technical assistance projects are related to identifying illicit products. 

39 

 
                                                           
According  to  evidence  collected  from  the  assessment  of  achievements,  the  purchase  of 
forensic  IT  systems  and  communication  technologies  enabled  law  enforcement 
authorities  to  exchange  intelligence  information  and  evidence  with  other  organisations 
within their countries and outside their countries. 

Figure  19  –  Case  study  example  -  Effectiveness  of  technical  assistance  projects  in 
contributing to the programme’s specific and operational objectives 

Case-study example - Hungary 

The most important area of support that the programme provided was in increasing 
data  exchange,  developing  and  providing  IT  tools  for  investigations,  and 
monitoring  intelligence  work.  Thanks  to  the  surveillance  technologies  acquired, 
both  projects  in  Hungary  generated  benefits  such  as  increased  technological 
capacity,  greater  support  provided  to  law  enforcement  agencies  and  increased 
transnational cooperation. 

*This case study included an analysis of two technical assistance projects for two separate Hungarian national authorities 
involving the provision of tools for digital evidence analysis as well as technical capacity development. 

Technical assistance projects were found to produce a number of positive external effects. 
Based on the assessment of achievements, the purchase of modern equipment generated a 
number  of  positive  effects  that  are  not  among  the  programme’s  primary  objectives,  but 
nevertheless benefit the national law enforcement agencies.  

Equipment  purchased  and  used  to  carry  out  border  checks  has  proven  useful  to 
detect  illegal  drugs  or  illegal  weapons.  10  out  of  the  19  final  implementation  reports 
analysed as part of the assessment of achievements reported seizures of drugs or illegal 
weapons.  

Evidence  from  the  case  studies  also  indicates  the  usefulness  of  equipment  in  seizing 
illegal substances or artefacts that do not primarily undermine the EU’s financial interests 
but pose a more general security threat to EU Member States. 

Evidence  from  the  assessment  of  achievements  and  from  case  studies  suggest  that 
technical equipment increased the health and safety of customs and police officers.  

The  modernisation  of  scanners  minimised  the  risk  to  radiation  exposure.  Modern 
communication  and  surveillance  equipment  helped  officers  monitor  criminal  activities 
while staying undetected at a safe distance. 

40 

 
 
 
 
Figure  20  –  Case  study  example  -  external  factors  affecting  the  delivery  of  results 
and achievements 

Case-study example - Lithuania 

Beneficiaries  found  that  a  scanner  purchased  through  the  programme  generated 
additional effects other than increasing the detection of smuggled goods. The scanner 
lowered  the  risk  of  radiation  and  therefore  resulted  in  a  safe  and  healthier 
environment  in  the  workplace,  creating  a  positive  impact  on  the  productivity  of  staff 
working in customs controls. Thus, the project highlighted areas where the effects of the 
programme  work  indirectly  by  enabling  more  productive  working  procedures  and  at 
the  same  time  creating  a  safer  and  healthier  work  environment  for  the  officers 
operating the purchased equipment. 

*This case study included an analysis of two technical assistance projects for two separate national authorities involving the 
development of criminal intelligence tools and the installation of a high-power stationary x-ray scanner.  

Figure 21 - Key findings regarding the effectiveness of technical assistance projects 

The evidence collected through the study suggests that technical assistance projects 
were  effective  during  the  period  under  review  (2014-2020).  In  particular,  the 
purchase of technical equipment and IT tools supported national law enforcement 
agencies  and  helped  minimise  risk  in  the  key  areas  of  cigarette  smuggling  and 
counterfeiting.  

Overall,  the  study  found  slightly  less  evidence  of  the  effectiveness  of  technical 
assistance projects in the area of counterfeiting. Furthermore, technical assistance 
actions  were  found  to  have  facilitated  national  and  transnational  cooperation 
between beneficiaries.  

The  analysis  of  evidence  also  unveiled  some  positive  external  effects  of  technical 
assistance,  specifically  in  the  detection  of  illicit  goods  such  as  cigarettes  and 
counterfeited products, as well as the increased health and safety of customs and 
police officers. 

Contribution to improving prevention and investigation of fraud – Training 

Under Article 8(b) of Regulation (EU) No 250/2014, a training project is described as the 
organisation of targeted specialised training, risk analysis training workshops, and where 
appropriate,  conferences.  This  includes  coordinating  activities  of  participating  countries 
and representatives of international organisations with the aim of exchanging experience 

41 

 
 
 
and best practice between authorities and developing high-profile research activities and 
studies. 

This  section  provides  an  overview  of  the  main  results  achieved  by  beneficiaries 
implementing  awarded  grants  for  training  purposes,  throughout  the  programme 
duration, including projects ending in 202061, which may have started in 2018 or 2019. 

Training activities finalised in 2020 concerned a wide range of disciplines and topics such 
as:  fighting  transit  fraud  in  the  EU;  advanced  X-ray  image  interpretation  training; 
methodologies of detecting and investigating crimes detrimental to EU financial interests; 
and  enhancing  the  cooperation  and  control  models  in  the  field  of  prevention  of  fraud 
affecting  the  EU’s  own  resources.  Between  2014  and  2020,  about  10  000  participants 
followed  specialised  training  and  conference  activities,  co-financed  by  the  programme 
through  grants.  The  received  feedback  upon  the  end  of  the  event  resulted  in  a  93% 
participants’  satisfaction  rate.  About  1  340  law  enforcement  officials  from  all  Member 
States participated in the specialised digital forensic and analyst training funded under the 
programme  (2014-2020).  A  valuable  network  of  forensic  and  analysis  specialists  was 
created in each Member State as an effect of such training possibilities. 

As  for  the  procured  events,  45  high-level  events  organised  by  OLAF  focused  on  the 
protection of the EU’s financial interests, including high-level meetings between customs 
and  other  regulatory  or  enforcement  authorities,  conferences  with  prosecutors  dealing 
with  fraud  cases,  meetings  of  the  dedicated  task  group  on  combating  illicit  cigarette 
production and smuggling, seminars with the AFCOS members, etc. 

The  effects  of  training  and  conferences  funded  by  the  programme  were  largely 
found to be of a less tangible nature, as they rarely result in the reduction of fraud or 
increased seizures of illicit cigarettes, which can be directly attributed to a training event. 
Respondents that had participated in events funded under the programme highlighted the 
importance of these events for networking and meeting colleagues from other countries.  

In the framework of the study supporting this evaluation, the stakeholders consulted by 
the external  contractor  found that training and conferences  were a  mixed success  in 
enhancing multidisciplinary cooperation and cooperation with practitioners. 

The majority of respondents to the survey of event participants did not agree, or agreed 
only to a limited extent, that the events improved cooperation between practitioners and 
academia. This may to a certain extent be explained by  the participation rates. The vast 
majority  of  participants  in  events  came  from  law  enforcement  agencies  (inspection 
services, customs, police), the judiciary (prosecutors, judges and court staff) and national 
authorities  (audit  services,  EU-related  administrative  services).  Only  a  minority  of 
participants  (5%  on  average)  came  from  academia  (universities,  study  centres).  Note, 

61  Source:  Advisory  Committee  for  the  Coordination  of  Fraud  Prevention  (COCOLAF)  –  OLAF 
presentation, 17 June 2021 - Hercule III, 2020 implementation and financing opportunities for 2021. 

42 

 
                                                           
however, that events open only to the law enforcement community (sometimes due to the 
sensitivity of the matters discussed), cannot promote cooperation with academia.  

Moreover,  during  the  interviews  of  the  study,  representatives  of  academic  institutions 
highlighted the programme’s success in enhancing cooperation between practitioners and 
academics,  while  interviewees  from  the  EU  institutions  or  Member  State  AFCOS  were 
more critical of this aspect.  

There  is  evidence  that  projects  under  the  programme  were  effective  at  producing 
high-level research.  

A majority of respondents to the applicants’ survey agreed to a great or to a certain extent 
that  the  event  they  participated  in  or  the  support  they  received  contributed  to  the 
development  of  high-profile  research.  Interviewees  from  academic  institutions  also 
reported that the programme funds were successful in creating a community of scholars 
that work in the field of EU criminal law and on protecting the EU’s financial interests.  

One  example  of  the  success  of  the  programme  in  developing  high-profile  research 
activities is the EUCRIM journal, which received a periodic grant during the funding 
period under review. For 2014–2020, EUCRIM published 27 special issues in total, each 
of  which  contained  multiple  academic  articles  and  commentaries  written  by  renowned 
scholars in the area of European criminal law. 

Figure 22 – Key findings on the effectiveness of anti-fraud training and conferences 

Overall,  the  anti-fraud  training  and  conferences  financed  or  procured  by  the 
programme  were  found  to  be  effective.  Networking  played  an  important  role  in 
developing  crossborder  cooperation  between  Member  State  authorities  and 
stakeholders.  

Further  evidence  confirmed  that  training  and  conferences  were  successful  in 
enhancing the exchange of best practice and experience among participants, and 
in contributing to the development of high-profile research.  

The  survey  found  less  evidence  on  the  effectiveness  of  training  in  enhancing 
cooperation  between  practitioners  and  academics.  Nonetheless,  the  programme 
was successful in expanding a community of scholars that work in the field of EU 
criminal law (studies) and on protecting the EU’s financial interests. 

Sustainability of the programme’s interventions 

The criterion of sustainability examines the extent to which the effects or changes caused 
by the programme could be permanent and to what degree their effects would last after 
project  completion.  Thus,  the  evaluation  looks  at  the  extent  to  which  the  long-term 
effects of the projects are viable and the degree to which they (may) have triggered any 
additional initiatives at national level. 

43 

 
 
In the case of technical assistance, evidence from the stakeholder consultations suggests 
that the sustainability of the programme is highly dependent on the nature and cost of the 
equipment purchased. Thus, as long as the equipment used in the fight against fraud is in 
use, effects can be prolonged. However, potential costs concerning software updates and 
general  maintenance  were  raised  in  the  interviews  as  factors,  which  hinder  the 
sustainability of the programme’s effects, as in most cases these costs are not covered as 
part of the funding provided for one particular project. 

Beneficiaries  of  technical  assistance  grants  must  mention  the  Hercule  III  programme 
support in their reporting and in any other document or press release that reports on the 
results. For example, press releases issued following seizures of counterfeit or smuggled 
cigarettes  through  funded  equipment  must  mention  the  EU  funding.  Hence,  the  EU-
funded investment by the beneficiary maintains its continued impact beyond the date of 
the end of the project, depending on the lifetime and use of the purchased material(s). 

Technical  assistance  grants  are  awarded  for  the  purchase  and  installation  of  technical 
equipment  that,  at  the  time  of  final  reporting,  were  operational  only  for  a  short  period. 
The first tangible results of the equipment, such as seizures, arrests of suspected persons 
or  estimates  of  prevented  losses  to  the  national  or  EU  budget,  can  only  be  reported 
months after the closing date of the action. For this reason, beneficiaries are required to 
submit a final implementation report one year after the closing date of the action to report 
on the results from the use of equipment. 

Figure 23 – Case study example - long-term sustainability of projects 

Case-study example - Poland 

       This  case  study  included  an  analysis  of  two  technical  assistance  projects  for 
two  separate  national  authorities  involving  the  purchase  of  a  backscattering  van 
and  capacity  building  for  the  detection  of  illicit  cigarettes.  Across  both  projects, 
positive long-term effects from the programme were apparent.  

The  programme  was  a  key  driver  in  the  stakeholders’  ability  to  meet  their 
department objectives in the fight against fraud, thus setting a foundation for future 
objectives and raising their capacity to develop further in the future. In particular, 
the study noted that the effects of the programme were not limited to the lifespan of 
the technologies but, in some instances, were able to build capacity and knowledge 
among the users of the equipment, thereby ensuring a more lasting impact. 

In  terms  of  the  provision  of  technical  assistance,  evidence  from  the  stakeholder 
consultations suggests that the sustainability of the programme is highly dependent on the 
nature and cost of the equipment purchased. If the equipment used to combat fraud is in 
use,  the  effects  can  be  sustained.  However,  potential  costs  of  software  updates  and 
general maintenance were raised in the interviews as factors that could make the effects 

44 

 
 
 
of the programme less sustainable, as in most cases the costs are not covered as part of 
the funding provided for that particular project.  

The mid- to long-term effects of training and conferences funded by the programme 
were found to be largely of a less tangible nature, as they rarely result in reduction of 
fraud or increased seizures of illicit cigarettes, which can be directly attributed to such an 
event. Respondents, participating in events funded under the programme, highlighted the 
importance of such events as opportunities for networking and meeting colleagues from 
other countries.  

According to the respondents, the informality of the events enabled participants to build 
a  trustworthy  working  relationship,  which  is  key  for  successful  transnational 
cooperation.  Participants  of  events  echoed  this  in  the  event  feedback  forms,  while  the 
survey  with  participants  of  procured  events  provides  further  evidence  that  training  and 
conferences  have  been  successful  in  enabling  participants  to  exchange  experience  and 
best practice.  

While anti-fraud events and conferences were found to contribute to the development of 
professional  networks,  evidence  on  the  sustainability  of  these  effects  over  time  is 
inconclusive. Evidence seems to suggest that in the aftermath of events, participants have 
gone  on  to  share  the  acquired  competences  and  knowledge  with  their  peers  at  their 
workplace.  This  thus  adds  to  the  sustainability  of  the  Programme  through  its  ability  to 
have an effect not just at the EU level but also at the national and regional levels.  

Beneficiaries of grants for training  must mention the support received from the Hercule 
III  programme  in  every  publication  (title  page)  or  related  material  (studies,  booklets, 
newsletters, leaflets, etc.), in online information (websites, audio-visual material, videos, 
software,  other),  and  at  events  (conferences,  workshops  and  seminars).  The  mentions 
must include a link from their website to the Hercule III programme site.  

  In this way, the benefits and impact of the programme are magnified via communication 
channels,  providing  digital  access  to  Hercule  and  enhancing  recognition  of  the 
programme. The study found that the long-term effects of the programme are sustainable 
to a certain extent, given the limited durability of technical assistance projects. 

  Although  the  survey  of  the  study  found  that  events  and  conferences  on  anti-fraud 
contributed  to  the  development  of  professional  networks,  evidence  on  how  sustainable 
these  effects  are  over  time  is  inconclusive.  Evidence  seems  to  suggest  that  after  the 
events, participants have gone on to share the acquired competences and knowledge with 
their peers at their workplace. This makes the programme more sustainable by generating 
an effect not just at EU level but also at the national and regional levels.  

As  for  the  extent  to  which  the  programme  triggered  additional  initiatives  at  national 
level,  the  evidence  is  inconclusive  as  to  whether  the  programme  triggered  similar 
initiatives  at  national  level.  The  number  of  respondents  who  do  not  know  whether  the 
programme triggered initiatives at national level was significant in all three surveys. The 
lack of awareness or knowledge of comparable national initiatives was also reflected in 

45 

 
the interviews where only  one respondent  mentioned a research project  implemented at 
national level as a result of a discussion at a conference funded by the programme.  

The  above  findings  may  be  due  to  a  combination  of  several  reasons,  for  example  the 
doubt that a beneficiary  would no longer receive financial support from the  programme 
once a similar initiative is set up with national funding or other sources of funding. 

5.3.  Efficiency 

The aim of assessing efficiency is to measure the relationship between the results and the 
resources  invested  in  attaining  the  results.  The  assessment  focused  on  identifying  the 
benefits  (cost  savings,  fraud  reduction,  etc.)  related  to  the  application  process  and 
implementation of funding projects, as well as the programme overall.  

Evidence  from  the  stakeholder  consultations  suggests  that  the  main  direct  cost  in 
both  the  application  and  implementation  phases  is  staffing  costs.  Interestingly,  the 
degree  to  which  the  costs  were  due  to  administrative  costs  and/or  burden  in  both  the 
application  procedures  and  the  reporting  required  to  implement  the  contracts  differed. 
This  is  consistent  with  the  finding  from  the  mid-term  evaluation,  which  found  that,  on 
average, beneficiaries spent more time completing applications than on reporting results. 
To understand these differences, the following subsections will explore each part in turn. 

Figure 24 – Case study example – Efficiency and cost effectiveness of projects 

Case-study example – Bulgaria and Latvia 

Bulgaria: Interviewees in both projects highlighted that in their opinion  it was not 
possible  to  achieve  any  cost  savings.  As  both  projects  were  procured  via  public 
procurement  processes  according  to  Bulgarian  public  procurement  rules  and 
procedures, the cheapest possible bids were awarded the contracts. 

Latvia: Interviewees focusing on both projects underlined how the benefits could not 
have  been  generated  at  a  lower  cost.  This  was  primarily  because  the  purchased 
equipment  was  carefully  selected  following  a  market  analysis  of  the  most  cost-
effective option available. The cost could not have been lower than the market value. 

*The case study in Bulgaria included an analysis of two technical assistance projects for two separate national authorities 
involving the purchase of Х-Rays scanners and enhancing technical capacity while Latvia involved the purchase of IT forensic 
equipment and a Rama Spectrometer.  

Evidence  from  the  applicants’  survey  found  that,  on  average,  applicants  to  the 
programme  spend  15.3  full-time  person  days  preparing  and  submitting  an  application. 
This  is  on  average  2.7  days  less  than  the  time  to  prepare  the  mid-term  evaluation, 
suggesting that the programme may have made some efficiency gains over 2014-2020.  

46 

 
 
This decrease could be explained by the switch to the online platform ‘e‘-grants’ in 2017. 
However, the respondents and sample sizes vary between the mid-term evaluation and the 
applicants’  survey  conducted  for  the  purpose  of  this  evaluation.  Therefore,  efficiency 
gains could purely reflect a different set of respondents.  

Although there may have been a reduction in the number of full-time person days needed 
to  complete  the  application  procedure,  43%  (53  out  of  123)  of  respondents  to  the 
applicants’ survey answered that the administrative costs had increased. This compares 
to 30% (37 out of 123) who answered that the costs had not changed.  

Evidence  from  the  interviews  suggests  that  a  lack  of  dedicated  staff  in  the  given 
organisations that are knowledgeable of EU funds could in part explain the administrative 
costs  incurred,  with  more  time  being  spent  understanding  the  application  process  and 
what was required for an application to be successful. 

Most stakeholders were of the view that the application procedure could be further 
simplified.  Across  the  interviews,  survey  and  case  studies,  they  suggested  that  the 
programme  could  provide  more  support  during  the  application  phase,  particularly  by 
fostering a better understanding of the award criteria and what constitutes best practice in 
preparing proposals. Furthermore, clearer instructions on the application procedure could 
help  minimise  common  mistakes  that  are  made  in  all  applications,  therefore  helping  to 
reduce  delays  and  the  overall  time  spent  completing  applications.  Despite  the  costs 
incurred  and  scope  to  simplify  the  application  procedure,  most  applicants  were  of  the 
view  that  additional  administrative  and  financial  burdens  did  not  discourage  them  from 
applying to a call for proposals under the programme. 

There  were  mixed  views,  however,  on  the  extent  to  which  the  procedures  in  the 
implementation  phase  could  be  simplified,  with  42%  of  beneficiaries  answering  that  it 
could  be  simplified,  and  38%  answering  that  it  could  not.  The  interviews  also  revealed 
these  differences  of  opinion,  where  only  a  few  interviewees  could  provide  examples  of 
ways  to  simplify  the  implementation  procedure.  Suggestions  included  minimising  the 
need for final reports from beneficiaries and a specific example of using the multiannual 
administrative arrangements between OLAF and the JRC to better implement projects.  

The  majority  of  the  programme  beneficiaries  acknowledged  that  they  experienced  both 
direct and indirect benefits as a result of implementing the projects. 

The  main  direct  benefit  highlighted  relating  to  technical  assistance  projects  was  the 
simple benefit of acquiring technical assistance equipment and innovative tools and 
methods.  Respondents  noted  that  the  equipment  had  resulted  in  higher  detection  rates 
and,  by  default,  an  increase  in  the  number  of  seizures.  This  was  similar  to  the  findings 
under  training,  where  the  greatest  benefit  was  in  developing  research  and  building 
knowledge among stakeholders.  

Concerning the indirect benefits of the programme, the most salient answer was in 
strengthening  collaboration  and  cooperation  between  and  within  Member  State 
authorities, and stakeholders, and in exchanging best practice. This was reiterated in 

47 

 
the  interviews  where  beneficiaries  reported  that  the  main  indirect  benefits  were  in 
improving the daily work of law enforcement authorities through better knowledge and 
skills.  

Considering  the  costs  and  benefits  incurred/accrued  by  stakeholders,  most  were  of  the 
view that the programme benefits outweighed the costs. For example, evidence from the 
applicants’  survey  highlighted  that  92%  of  beneficiaries  agreed  that  the  benefits 
generated outweigh the costs incurred during the contract. 

In  addition,  several  stakeholders  highlighted  that,  for  technical  assistance  projects,  the 
value  of  goods  seized  often  exceeded  the  initial  value  of  the  contract  awarded  by  the 
programme.  The  case  studies  in  Poland  confirmed  that  the  value  of  a  single  seizure 
covered  the  whole  project  investment  cost.  A  few  interviewees  highlighted  several 
contextual factors that can affect the relationship between costs and benefits.  

A  partner  organisation  highlighted  that  there  can  be  differences  in  the  use  of  funding 
under the programme to organise events and conferences between different stakeholders. 
For  example,  some  organisations  may  not  always  have  the  experience  of  organising 
large-scale  events  compared  to  other  organisations  who  may  have  more  trained  and 
experienced staff. Thus, in this situation it may not be fair to compare the use of budget 
between organisations in assessing the individual efficiency of each project. 

Figure 25 – Main findings under efficiency 

Considering the costs and benefits incurred by stakeholders, a good majority were of the 
view that the programme’s benefits outweighed the costs.  

The  overwhelming  majority  of  beneficiaries  also  reported  that  they  experienced  both 
direct and indirect benefits as a result of implementing the projects, with the most salient 
benefit  being  the  purchase  of  technical  equipment.  This  was  due  to  many  national 
authorities  experiencing  budget  restraints,  limiting  their  ability  to  make  significant 
investments.  Overall,  the  main  direct  costs  in  both  the  application  and  implementation 
phases were for staffing costs.  

On average, applicants to the programme spent 15.3 full-time person days preparing and 
applying for funding, compared to an average of 14.4 full-time person days to meet the 
programme’s reporting requirements during the implementation. They identified scope to 
simplify some procedures in the programme (application and reporting), namely through 
avoiding redundancies in application forms as well as providing further guidance. 

5.4.  Coherence 

The assessment of internal and external coherence examines the extent to which aspects 
of the Hercule III programme worked well together and with other EU programmes and 
areas of action. 

48 

 
 
 
The  assessment  of  internal  coherence  examines  whether  the  different  projects  funded 
under the programme are complementary, whether there  are  synergies between them  or 
whether  they  overlap.  The  findings  on  internal  coherence  drew  on  three  sources:  desk 
research, feedback received in interviews and responses from the applicants’ survey.  

The  activities  eligible  for  funding  under  the  programme  appear  to  be 
complementary.  The  evaluation  did  not  identify  any  critical  overlaps  between  the 
different activities funded by Hercule III.  

The review of the regulation establishing the Hercule III programme and its annual work 
programmes did not uncover any inconsistencies that would generate significant overlaps. 
Desk research was supplemented by opinions provided by multiple stakeholders to assess 
how  the  programme  was  implemented  in  practice.  Although  interviewees  from  EU 
institutions did not mention any current overlaps between programme activities, a quarter 
of participants to the applicants’ survey (27 out of 99) did. A few of the respondents who 
provided written feedback (6 out of 18) mentioned that conferences, seminars, and legal 
studies are somehow related. In fact, after a conference is organised, stakeholders often 
work together to prepare a study on the topics covered.  

Therefore,  survey  respondents  found  that  the  distinction  between  these  types  of 
activities  was  not  clear.  However,  it  can  be  argued  that  rather  than  overlapping,  these 
activities  appear  to  be  strongly  complementary,  in  that  one  precedes  and  feeds  into  the 
other. Similarly, several respondents who provided written feedback highlighted that the 
purchase  of  equipment  often  requires  training.  This  may  result  in  an  overlap  between 
technical assistance and training activities.  

The  assessment  did  not  reveal  any  significant  contradictions  between  the  types  of 
activities  funded.  The  desk-based  assessment  of  coherence  and  the  feedback  collected 
through interviews did not highlight any contradictions.  

Internal coherence between the types of activities of the Hercule III programme 

Figure 26 provides an overview of the activities eligible for funding under each pillar of 
the  Hercule  III  programme.  Activities  listed  in  row  (i)  under  technical  assistance  and 
under  training  appear  similar  but  they  target  different  audiences  and  have  different 
goals.  

Training  under  the  technical  assistance  pillar  specifically  focuses  on  providing  specific 
information on the use of equipment funded under technical assistance as well as on the 
use and sharing of data collected by the  equipment in transnational cooperation or with 
the  Commission.  The  aim  of  the  ‘general’  training  is  to  raise  awareness  of  the 
mechanisms available at national and EU level that help Member States combat fraud.  

Overall, the activities eligible for funding under the Hercule III  programme appear 
to be strongly complementary. Activities funded under training may help stakeholders 
implement  technical  assistance  projects  effectively  in  future.  In  turn,  projects  eligible 
under the third pillar may help fill any specific gaps arising from the first two pillars.  

49 

 
Figure 26 - Activities eligible for funding under the Hercule III programme 

(c) Other 
Any other action not 
covered under point 
(a) or (b) of this 
Article, provided for 
in the annual work 
programmes 
referred to in Article 
11, which is 
necessary for 
attaining 
the general, the 
specific and the 
operational 
objectives 
provided for in 
Articles 3, 4 and 5 
respectively. 

(i) 

(a) Technical assistance 
Providing specific 
knowledge, specialised and 
technically advanced 
equipment and effective 
information technology (IT) 
tools facilitating 
transnational cooperation 
and cooperation with the 
Commission.  

(ii)  Ensuring the necessary 
support and facilitating 
investigations, in particular 
the setting up of joint 
investigation teams and 
cross-border operations.  

(iii)  Supporting Member States’ 
capacity to store and 
destroy seized cigarettes, as 
well as independent 
analytical services for the 
analysis of seized cigarettes.  

(iv)  Enhancing staff exchanges 
for specific projects, in 
particular in the field of the 
fight against cigarette 
smuggling and 
counterfeiting.  

(v)  Providing technical and 

operational support for the 
law enforcement authorities 
of the Member States in 
their fight against illegal 
cross-border activities and 
fraud affecting the EU’s 
financial interests, including 
in particular support for 
customs authorities.  
(vi)  Building information 
technology capacity 
throughout participating 
countries by developing and 
providing specific databases 
and IT tools facilitating data 
access and analysis 

(b) Training 

Fostering better 
understanding of EU and 
national mechanisms.  

Exchanging experience 
and best practices between 
the relevant authorities in 
the participating countries, 
including specialised law 
enforcement services and 
representatives of interna-
tional organisations as 
referred to in Article 7(3). 
Coordinating the activities 
of participating countries, 
and representatives of 
international 
organisations, as referred 
to in Article 7(3). 
Disseminating knowledge, 
particularly on better 
identification of risk for 
investigative purposes. 

Developing high-profile 
research activities, 
including studies. 

Improving cooperation 
between practitioners and 
academics. 

50 

 
 
(a) Technical assistance 
(vii)  Increasing data exchange, 
developing and providing 
IT tools for investigations, 
and monitoring intelligence 
work.  

(c) Other 

(b) Training 
Further raising the 
awareness of the judiciary 
(prosecutors, judges and 
court staff) and other 
branches of the legal 
profession (lawyers, 
barristers, solicitors, 
notaries, bailiffs) for the 
protection of the EU’s 
financial interests. 

The actions eligible for funding appear to be coherent with one another. They have been 
implemented in line with the allocation of funds provided in the Annex to the Hercule III 
Regulation.  Whilst respecting the set financial values, the number of actions funded were 
also  implemented  in  a  well-balanced  manner:  approximately  50%  of  the  actions  were 
technical assistance opportunities (about 80% financial value), while 48% of them were 
training activities (about 19% financial value).  

Figure 27 – Finding on the coherence of eligible projects and their implementation 

Projects  eligible for funding appear  to be coherent  with one another. They  were 
implemented  in  line  with  the  allocation  of  funds  provided  for  in  the  Annex  to  the 
Hercule  III  Regulation.  Whilst  respecting  the  set  financial  values,  the  number  of 
projects funded were also implemented in a well-balanced manner: approximately 
50% were technical assistance and 48% were training projects. 

The assessment of external coherence examines whether there are any complementarities, 
synergies  or  overlaps  between  the  Hercule  III  programme  and  other  EU  legislation  or 
programmes. Findings on external coherence are based on two sources: desk research and 
feedback received in the interviews with the external contractor during the study. 

The  desk-based  assessment  and  EU  interviews  uncovered  significant  complementarities 
between  Regulation  (EU)  2017/1939  implementing  enhanced  cooperation  on  the 
establishment of the European Public Prosecutor’s Office  62 (‘EPPO Regulation’) and the 
Hercule  III  programme.  The  objective  of  the  EPPO  Regulation  is  to  ‘enhance  the  fight 
against  offences  affecting  the  financial  interests  of  the  Union  by  setting  up  the  EPPO’ 
(Recital 12 of Regulation (EU) No 2017/1939).  

62  See footnote 13. 

51 

 
 
 
                                                           
Regulation (EU) 2017/1939 specifies that the EPPO shall establish and maintain a close 
relationship  with  OLAF  based  on  mutual  cooperation.  They  act  according  to  their 
respective mandates and avoid duplicating investigative activities. 

In relation to the above, four interviewees mentioned that, while the core activities of the 
EPPO are related to the investigations and prosecutions of crimes affecting the Union’s 
financial  interests,  some  specific  EPPO’s  initiatives,  such  as  the  training  of  national 
authorities on  features and activities of the EPPO, are complementary to  other schemes 
funded  by  the  programme.  Conferences  funded  by  Hercule  III  were  also  organised  to 
support  the  debates  on  the  establishment  of  the  EPPO.  The  desk-based  review  of  the 
EPPO and Hercule III legal texts also highlights aspects of complementarity:  

-  both pursue the objective to protect the EU’s financial interests;  

-  both promote, albeit in very different contexts, collaboration between EU and non-EU 

bodies to facilitate and step up the fight against fraudulent activities. 

There is a small potential risk that the training activities organised by the EPPO and the 
training  activities  funded  by  the  programme  (especially  on  legal  training)  may  overlap, 
despite being seen as complementary. Since the EPPO started its operational activities on 
1  June  2021,  this  potential  overlap  is  limited  to  training  projects,  funded  through  the 
Hercule Programme under the 2020 budget, and to those, which would be implemented in 
2021  and  2022.  The  training  activities  funded  by  the  Hercule  programme  focus  on 
protection of the EU’s financial interests by means of administrative law whereas training 
organised  by  the  EPPO  is  dedicated  to  criminal  investigations  within  their  remit.  The 
EPPO  Regulation  and  the  Hercule  III  Regulation  have  similar  objectives  but  they 
contribute to their achievement in different ways. 

The PIF Directive sets minimum rules concerning the definition of criminal offences and 
sanctions  in  the  area  of  combating  fraud  and  other  illegal  activities  affecting  the  EU's 
financial  interests.  The  PIF  Directive  seeks  to  strengthen  the  fight  against  criminal 
offences that undermine the EU’s financial interests. 

There appears to be some complementarity between the PIF Directive and the Hercule III 
Regulation.  The  aim  of  the  PIF  Directive  is  to  strengthen  the  fight  against  fraud  and 
protect the EU’s financial interests, in line with the general objectives of the Hercule III 
programme.  Both  desk  research  and  interviews  with  stakeholders  from  the  EU 
institutions indicate that the two pieces of legislation differ quite substantially in terms of 
how they envisage achieving their goals. 

The PIF Directive aims to harmonise the rules on the definitions and penalties in the area 
of  crimes  affecting  the  Union’s  financial  interests,  which  national  authorities  and  the 
EPPO  must  apply  when  investigating  and  prosecuting  such  crimes.  The  PIF  Directive 
also  defines  the  EPPO’s  material  competence.  The  Hercule  III  Regulation,  by  contrast, 
combats fraud by providing funding for activities to conduct investigations on fraudulent 
activities, to seize and destroy fraudulent products and to learn about the modus operandi 

52 

 
of  criminal  networks.  To  sum  up,  the  PIF  Directive,  the  EPPO  and  the  Hercule  III 
programme activities have similar objectives but pursue them in very different ways. 

There  is  strong  complementarity  between  action  under  the  Hercule  III  programme  and 
AFIS.  

The anti-fraud information system (AFIS) is a web-based platform that was set up on the 
basis  of  Council  Regulation  515/9763.  AFIS  offers  several  IT  applications  to  users  in 
organisations tasked with preventing, investigating, and prosecuting infringements of EU 
customs or agricultural legislation. OLAF operates the AFIS anti-fraud applications. 

The  general  objective  of  AFIS  is  to  protect  the  EU’s  financial  interest  and  taxpayers’ 
money.  Its  specific  objective  is  to  support  mutual  assistance  in  customs  matters  by 
providing  secure  information  exchange  tools  for  joint  operations  and  specific  customs 
anti-fraud information exchange modules and databases such as the Customs Information 
System.  AFIS  allows  for  a  safe  and  efficient  exchange  of  information.  The  Hercule  III 
Regulation encourages such exchanges between different competent bodies. Interviewed 
stakeholders confirmed that AFIS is complementary to Hercule III, as it provides a useful 
IT tool to implement technical assistance projects funded by Hercule III.  

One  interviewee  mentioned  that  AFIS  (and  Council  Regulation  (EC)  No  515/97)  are 
complementary to the Hercule III programme. Both legal bases have in the past allowed 
for funding of similar conferences run under both programmes.  

The Commission decided to make better use of this complementarity and integrated in the 
EU’s new anti-fraud  programme the  Hercule  component (spending part), the AFIS part 
and the Irregularity Management System (IMS); the latter two based on Regulation (EC) 
No 515/97. This will further increase complementarity and avoid any risk of overlap. 

Desk research also found complementarities between the Hercule III programme and the 
Fiscalis  2020  programme.  Under  Regulation  1286/201364  establishing  the  Fiscalis  2020 
programme, the general objective of Fiscalis 2020 is to improve the proper functioning of 
taxation systems in the internal market by stepping up cooperation between participating 
countries, their tax authorities and their officials.  

Several areas for action eligible for funding under the Fiscalis programme are similar in 
nature  to  those  eligible  under  the  Hercule  III  programme.  This  may  be  a  source  of 
potential, though limited, overlap. Two interviewees mentioned that training/workshops, 

63  Council  Regulation  (EC)  No  515/97  of  13  March  1997  on  mutual  assistance  between  the 
administrative  authorities  of  the  Member  States  and  cooperation  between  the  latter  and  the 
Commission to ensure the correct application of the law on customs and agricultural matters, OJ L 82, 
22.3.1997, p. 1. 

64  Regulation (EU) No 1286/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 December 2013 
establishing an action programme to improve the operation of taxation systems in the European Union 
for  the  period  2014-2020  (Fiscalis  2020)  and  repealing  Decision  No  1482/2007/EC,  OJ  L  347, 
20.12.2013, p. 25. 

53 

 
                                                           
working visits, administrative cooperation and expert skills development could have been 
funded under either the Hercule or the Fiscalis programmes.  

Nevertheless, an in-depth analysis and comparison of the Hercule III and Fiscalis’ work 
programmes  established  that  there  was  no  overlap.  The  Hercule  III  programme  did  not 
fund activities primarily focusing on tax fraud, tax evasion, and aggressive tax planning. 
On the contrary, it can be argued that Hercule III was complementary to Fiscalis in that 
action  to  combat  fraud  using  Hercule-funded  equipment  also  contributed  to  combating 
tax fraud and evasion.  

Desk research and interviews also found an area of potential overlap between the Hercule 
III programme and the Customs 2020 programme (2014-2020, repealed and replaced by 
the  new  Customs  programme65).  However,  both  programmes  are  to  be  considered 
complementary to each other and their output should not mean duplication of the efforts 
and financial support. The participating Commission departments are  preparing a future 
coordination  to  improve  cooperation  across  the  departments  with  a  view  to  regularly 
review  joint  implementation  issues,  likely  supported  by  an  arrangement  to  avoid  any 
potential double funding. 

Under Regulation 1294/201366, the general objective of the Customs 2020 Programme is 
to  support  the  functioning  and  the  modernisation  of  the  customs  union  in  order  to 
strengthen  the  internal  market.  One  of  its  specific  objectives  is  to  support  customs 
authorities  in  protecting  the  financial  and  economic  interests  of  the  EU  and  of  the 
Member States.  In that sense, the joint  actions pillar of Customs 2020 set  up a specific 
grant for the customs eastern and south-eastern land border expert team (CELBET III67), 
which supported the cooperation and sharing of expertise of the partner country customs 
experts,  the  coordination  of  data  analysis  and  risk  assessment  efforts  to  increase  the 
quality and efficiency of customs controls at the borders. 

The  technical  assistance  pillar  of  the  Hercule  III  programme  provides  for  the  purchase 
and upgrading of tools to carry out inspections of containers, trucks, railway wagons and 
vehicles  at  the  EU’s  external  borders  and  within  the  EU  to  detect  smuggled  and 
counterfeit goods.  

Therefore,  Hercule  III  provided  support  to  applicants  for  grants  from  the  CELBET 
customs  authorities  concerned  to  purchase  equipment  to  combat  smuggling  or  other 
criminal cross-border activities.  

65  Regulation  (EU)  2021/444  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  establishing  the  Customs 
programme for cooperation in the field of customs and repealing Regulation (EU) No 1294/2013, OJ L 
87, 15.3.2021, p. 1. 

66  Regulation (EU) No 1294/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 December 2013 
establishing  an  action  programme  for  customs  in  the  European  Union  for  the  period  2014-2020 
(Customs 2020) and repealing Decision No 624/2007/EC, OJ L 347, 20.12.2013, p. 209. 

67     https://www.celbet.eu 

54 

 
                                                           
As  such,  there  was  complementarity  between  the  two  programmes  reinforcing  each 
other’s impact in the eastern and south-eastern EU Member States having access to both 
sources of funding.  

The Hercule III programme funded the purchase of customs control equipment whereas 
the Customs  programme  did  not. To avoid  any potential future risk of overlap between 
the  two  programmes,  Recital  17  of  the  Regulation  establishing  the  EU  anti-fraud 
programme  (UAFP)  clarifies  that  such  potential  overlapping  of  funding  should  be 
avoided.  

In  addition,  the  UAFP’s  2021  annual  work  programme  clarifies  that  the  UAFP  will 
support the acquisition of types of equipment that do not fall under the scope of the new 
instrument for financial support for customs control equipment, as part of the Integrated 
Border Management Fund68.  

Finally, as specified in the UAFP annual work programme, the Commission will look at 
the potential overlap while evaluating the coherence and added value of a proposal for the 
protection of the EU’s financial interests. 

Figure 28 – Case study example (Malta) – External coherence 

This  project  concerned  the  procurement  of  a  ‘Z  Backscatter  van’,  which  is 
deployed  flexibly  at  several  ports  in  Malta.  It  is  used  to  scan  containers  and 
cargo ships as well as vehicles that arrive with ferries in Malta. Awarded grant 
amount: EUR 864 284.06 

The authorities sought to create synergies with the customs 2020 programme in 
the  form  of  a  working  visit  of  Belgian  customs  to  Malta,  which  resulted  in 
knowledge  and  skill  transfer  and  was  highly  appreciated  by  the  authorities 
involved.  Interviewees  highlighted  that  they  benefitted  from  the  customs  2020 
programme, as the fund was used to finance the visit of two representatives of the 
Belgian customs authority to Malta. During this visit, the Maltese customs gained 
valuable  knowledge  and  skills  on  how  to  operate  the  backscatter  van,  which 
proved  to  be  crucial  when  the  equipment  was  deployed.  Belgian  customs  had 
already  acquired  a  backscatter  van  so  they  could  share  operational  skills  and 
experience in using this exact equipment.  

The  interviewees  welcomed  the  scope  to  finance  these  initiatives  across  funding 
programmes. 

68  Regulation  (EU)  2021/1077  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  24  June  2021 
establishing, as part of the Integrated Border Management Fund, the  instrument for financial support 
for customs control equipment, OJ L 234, 2.7.2021, p. 1–17. 

55 

 
 
                                                           
the  Hercule  III  and 

the  Justice  programme  are 

The  objectives  of 
inherently 
complementary.  Under  Article  3  of  Regulation  1382/201369  establishing  the  Justice 
programme,  the  general  objective  of  the  programme  is  to  contribute  to  the  further 
development of a European area of justice based on mutual recognition and mutual trust, 
in particular by promoting judicial cooperation in civil and criminal matters. Article 12 of 
Regulation  1382/2013  states  that  the  Commission  must  ensure  overall  consistency, 
complementarity  and  synergies  with  the  work  of  EU  bodies,  offices  and  agencies 
operating  in  areas  covered  by  the  objectives  of  the  programme.  The  Hercule  III 
programme  has  the  objective  to  prevent  and  combat  fraud,  corruption  and  any  other 
illegal  activities  affecting  the  EU’s  financial  interests.  The  achievement  of  Hercule 
objectives strongly depends on a fully functioning EU judicial system.  

Four  stakeholders  interviewed  mentioned  that  training  for  the  judiciary  (prosecutors, 
judges and court staff) could be implemented and financed under either programme. To 
avoid such overlaps, the target groups of both programmes should be better defined. The 
Hercule  III  programme  should  (mainly)  target  public  authorities  and  law  enforcement 
agencies  (inspection  services,  customs,  police)  and  the  Justice  programme  should 
(mainly) target training for public prosecutors, magistrates and court staff. In any event, it 
should  be  mentioned  that  the  same  costs  should  not  be  double  or  multiple  funded,  but 
training, conference  or study  activities can be implemented and funded  by  two or more 
(complementary) programmes. The Pericles programme and the structural reform support 
programme  finance  similar  activities  to  the  Hercule  III  programme.  More  synergies 
between both programmes could be achieved on counterfeiting. 

Figure 29 - Main findings under coherence (internal and external coherence) 

Internal coherence 
The  projects  eligible  for  funding  under  Hercule  III  appear  to  be  complementary  with  one 
another. The assessment did not identify any critical overlaps between the different activities, 
although a few survey respondents indicated that conferences, training, and legal studies, as 
activities,  could  overlap  to  a  certain  degree.  Based  on  desk  research  and  interviews,  it 
appears that participants did not actively seek synergies across the range of projects funded 
by this programme.  
External coherence 
There  are  strong  complementarities  between  the  Hercule  III  programme  and  the  AFIS 
platform.  The  programme is  also  highly  complementary  with  the  Fiscalis and  the  Customs 
2020  programmes.  Lastly,  the  objectives  of  the  Justice  programme  are  complementary  to 
those  of  the  Hercule  programme.  However,  there  is  potential  for  overlap  too  as  both 
programmes fund certain similar training activities.  

69  Regulation  (EU) 2021/693  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  28 April  2021 
establishing  the  Justice  programme  and  repealing  Regulation  (EU)  No 1382/2013,  OJ  L  354, 
28.12.2013, p. 73. 

56 

 
 
                                                           
5.5.  Added value 

3.1.16. EU added value as identified through the external study 

The evaluation looked at evidence of EU added value at national level and the extent to 
which similar results could be achieved without EU action. 

Figure 30 – Case study example – EU added value 

Case study example – Latvia 

This  case  study  included  an  analysis  of  two  technical  assistance  projects  for  two 
separate Latvian national authorities involving the strengthening of the technical 
capacity  of  investigative  departments  and  capacity  building  for  forensic 
examination. Both projects outlined the clear added value of EU action under the 
programme. This was primarily due to the lack of available national funds, hence 
the  Programme  acted  as  a  strong  enabler  for  both  departments  concerned  to 
provide high quality information to their respective law enforcement agencies and, 
by extension, help reduce the levels of fraud in Latvia.  

Stakeholders  consider  that  EU  action  taken  under  the  programme  provided  significant 
added value, compared to what could have been achieved at national and regional level.  

The evaluation of the Hercule II programme and the mid-term evaluation of Hercule III 
confirmed that the programme did indeed provide added value. This evaluation supports 
the same finding. The majority (70/99) of respondents to the applicants’ survey disagreed 
that the same results could have been achieved at national or regional level. In particular, 
the programme was seen to provide two main aspects of additional value. 

Firstly, it acted as a key driver and enabler for stakeholders to counter and reduce 
the risks of fraud harming the EU’s financial interests.  

Across  each  of  the  stakeholder  consultation  activities,  many  stakeholders  (particularly 
Member State authorities) mentioned the role the programme had in providing the means 
to  tackle  the  key  areas  of  fraud  in  their  countries.  This  was  particularly  the  case  for 
technical  assistance where beneficiaries noted that  it is  often not  feasible to  make large 
investments in different types of technologies or equipment due to limits in the national 
budget available to them.  

Interviewees from central and eastern European countries mainly cited a lack of available 
budget/ability for Member States to finance new equipment. This was also the case in the 
applicants’ survey  where a greater number of respondents  who answered  that  the same 
results could not have been achieved at national level were authorities in countries 
such as Poland, Bulgaria, Latvia, and also Italy.  

The grants  funded by  the programme therefore  made the prospects  of such investments 
more  probable,  and  in  some  cases,  aided  Member  State  authorities  in  making  a  case  to 

57 

 
 
their  ministries  to  make  the  investments.  This  increased  probability  was  also  linked  in 
some  of  the  interviews  to  the  speed  at  which  the  programme  can  provide  support, 
compared to national level funding opportunities.  

Several  beneficiaries,  as  well  as  unsuccessful  applicants,  noted  the  additional 
credibility  and  reliability  generated  by  being  associated  with  the  programme.  In 
particular, being connected to the programme, and by default to activities carried out with 
OLAF, added increased legitimacy to the work carried out at national level.  

Secondly, beneficiaries viewed the programme as a facilitator for EU-level cooperation 
between  Member  States,  specifically  by  funding  training,  conferences,  databases 
and tools.  

More  specifically,  the  main  additional  value  found  in  terms  of  training  (i.e.  training 
activities, conferences and funded databases and tools) was the programme’s ability to 
enable EU-level groups and events to be  created and to function. In particular, anti-
fraud  training  and  conferences  were  found  to  provide  significant  value  in  bringing 
countries together that may not have worked together previously.  

For each of the three annual calls (for projects on technical assistance, legal training and 
training  and  conferences)  under  the  Hercule  annual  work  programmes,  the  applications 
received are assessed by an evaluation committee on the basis of four criteria (eligibility, 
exclusion,  selection  and  award)  and  ranked  with  a  score  and  award  criteria.  The  latter 
include  (ex  ante  identifiable)  added  value  of  the  application  in  protecting  the  EU’s 
financial interests; conformity with the operational objectives of the programme; quality 
of the project; and value for money. 

Evidence  from  the  2020  Hercule  III  annual  work  programme  found  that  for  technical 
assistance,  the  Commission  encouraged  projects  that  are  carried  out  jointly  by  the 
programme's beneficiaries in multiple Member States in order to strengthen cross-border 
cooperation to combat activities that are detrimental to the EU's financial interests, such 
as smuggling tobacco, cigarettes, counterfeit goods or VAT-carousels.  

While the evaluation found evidence that these joint operations took place, it is unclear 
whether  there  has  been  an  increase  since  2016.  The  EU’s  new  anti-fraud  programme 
puts greater emphasis on joint action between Member States for technical assistance 
projects. Its 2021 annual work programme reflects that. 

3.1.18.  The programme’s contribution to the Commission’s priorities 

This  evaluation  also  looked  into  the  programme’s  contribution  to  the  Commission’s 
overarching  priorities,  in  particular  to  its  ‘Europe  2020’  strategy.  In  March  2010,  the 
European  Commission  adopted  the  Europe  2020  strategy  for  smart,  sustainable  and 

58 

 
inclusive growth70. Its objective was to enhance competitiveness within the EU between 
businesses and to protect their competitiveness from external unlawful competition. 

Figure  31  –  The  Hercule  III  programme’s  contribution  to  the  Commission’s 
strategies 

Though the Hercule III programme did not make a direct contribution to this strategy, it 
can  be  seen  to  have  indirectly  contributed.  For  example,  following  the  logic  that 
preventing  and  combating  fraud,  corruption  and  other  illegal  activities  against  EU 
financial interests helps secure EU resources that can be invested into other EU initiatives 
to  promote  smart,  sustainable  and  inclusive  growth,  the  programme  can  be  seen  as  a 
crucial gatekeeper for action under the Europe 2020 strategy. 

Figure 32 - Summary of key findings in terms of EU added value  

The  overall  view  across  consulted  stakeholders  is  that  the  programme  provides 
clear EU added value. Specifically, it acts as an enabler and driver for Member 
States  to  use  a  higher  standard  of  equipment  to  detect  and  reduce  the  risks  of 
fraud than would have been possible without the programme.  

The  programme  was  also  seen  to  act  as  a  facilitator  for  EU  level  cooperation 
between Member States, specifically by funding training, conferences, databases 
and tools. 

70  Communication from the Commission, EUROPE 2020 - A strategy for smart, sustainable and inclusive 

growth, COM(2010) 2020. 

59 

 
 
 
 
                                                           
6. 

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 

The  following  section  provides  a  summary  of  the  conclusions  with  a  breakdown  by 
evaluation  criterion  (relevance,  effectiveness  (including  sustainability),  efficiency, 
coherence and EU added value). It also makes certain recommendations. 

This section focuses only on the Hercule III programme, as it was set up for the previous 
multiannual  budget  period.  It  does  not  take  into  account  further  developments  in  EU 
policy, notably with the proposal and subsequent adoption in  2021 of the EU anti-fraud 
programme.  Indeed,  many  of  the  conclusions  and  recommendations  presented  in  this 
section and similarly in  the consultant’s report are to  a good extent already reflected in 
the UAFP. In that sense, this evaluation lends good support to the Commission’s current 
practice.  That,  however,  is  outside  the  scope  of  this  technical  evaluation  of  a  past 
programme.  It  is  to  be  developed  further  in  the  Commission’s  Report  to  the  European 
Parliament and the Council, which the present evaluation is accompanying. 

Conclusion  1  –  The  programme  is  considered  highly  relevant,  and  must  be 
continually adjusted to new developments in the fraud landscape, in anti-fraud tools 
and in the regulatory framework 

The programme remains highly relevant in meeting the needs of stakeholders working on 
the front line to protect the EU’s financial interests. Evidence collected by the contractor 
through consultations with stakeholders showed that their needs are highly aligned with 
the objectives of the programme. This is particularly the case for operational objective 3 
on strengthening the fight against fraud by providing technical and operational support to 
national authorities. 

However,  new,  more  recent  developments  in  the  field  of  expenditure  fraud  and 
cybercrime  affect  the  continued  relevance  of  the  programme,  drafted  in  2011.  This 
applies in particular to new developments in expenditure fraud, cybercrime, and the need 
for the programme itself to be(come) more reactive to emerging threats.  

Stakeholders also highlighted the continuous need for greater awareness and publicity 
of EU funding opportunities under this and similar programmes. 

-  Recommendation 1.1: To maintain the programme’s relevance, the Commission 
should regularly review and adjust the focus of the programme where needed. 

For  an  anti-fraud  programme  to  remain  relevant,  it  must  continuously  adapt  to  a  fast-
changing anti-fraud landscape. New trends in criminal activity arise, and fraudsters will 
always  invent  new  techniques  and  use  the  opportunities  of  operating  seamlessly  across 
borders, and in cyberspace.  

In  seeking  to  address  this  ever-changing  panorama,  the  Commission  has  drawn  on 
multiple sources to develop an anti-fraud programme. Two main sources stand out: on the 
one  hand,  continuous  dialogue  with  the  stakeholders,  notably  those  on  the  frontline  of 
protecting  the  EU’s  financial  interests  at  European  and  national  level.  Several  of  these 

60 

 
 
groups  are  already  consulted  during  the  preparatory  phase  to  draw  up  each  new  work 
programme.  

On the other hand, several Commission action plans (in areas such as customs71, work to 
combat  tobacco  smuggling72,  or  the  Commission’s  anti-fraud  strategy73  or  the  priorities 
agreed  with  the  Member  States  in  the  framework  of  the  European  multidisciplinary 
platform  against  criminal  threats  (EMPACT)  and  similar  policy  documents),  provide 
authoritative  guidance  on  the  evolving  priorities  of  EU  law  enforcement.  A  continuous 
close  alignment  with  these  guidance  documents  will  also  increase  the  coherence  of  the 
anti-fraud programme with the EU’s wider action on the expenditure, revenue, home and 
justice domains. 

-  Recommendation 1.2: the Commission should continuously strive to promote to 
stakeholder groups the opportunities available under the programme, including 
its evolving focus. 

The Commission (OLAF), implementing the programme, has already made good use of 
several channels to publicise opportunities for funding under the Hercule III programme. 
These range from the OLAF website via the AFCOS network to the Council and  expert 
groups where all Member States are represented. In addition, all relevant information is 
always published on the Commission (OLAF) website and on the web portal that collects 
all Commission funding and tender opportunities. 

Conclusion  2  –  stakeholders  perceive  the  programme’s  effectiveness  as  very  high, 
both  in  terms  of  technical  assistance  and  training,  though  actual  effectiveness  has 
proved difficult to assess. 

The stakeholders perceived the programme as highly effective across all three sectors of 
in 
action.  The  programme  was 
investigations,  creating  national  and  international  networks  and  working  towards  a 
strengthened EU level approach to combating fraud.  

in  supporting  national  authorities 

influential 

Technical  assistance  generated  more  direct  impacts  than  training  activities.  This  was 
particularly  the  case  for  the  provision  of  technical  and  advanced  equipment  used  by 
national authorities in the prevention and investigation of fraud or other illegal activities. 
Most  notably,  technical  assistance  grants  generated  specific  knowledge  facilitating 
transnational  cooperation  and  cooperation  with  the  Commission,  as  well  as  increasing 
both the operational and analytical capacity of law enforcement agencies across the EU. 

71  Commission Communication  Action Plan Taking the Customs Union to the Next Level, COM (2020) 

581 final, 28.9.2020. 

72  Commission  Communication  Second  Action  Plan  to  fight  the  illicit  tobacco  trade  2018-2022,  COM 

(2018) 846 final, 7.12.2018. 

73  Commission  anti-fraud  strategy:  enhanced  action  to  protect  the  EU  budget  (SWD(2019)  170  final  - 

SWD(2019) 171 final - COM(2019) 196 final, 29.4.2019).  

61 

 
 
                                                           
Training  activities  were  also  perceived  to  be  effective,  but  their  effects  were  more 
indirect.  The  indirect  effects  were  principally  created  through  the  development  of 
networks facilitated through participation in training events and conferences.  

Member  States  made  comparatively  little  use  of  the  scope  for  staff  exchanges.  Any 
administrative bottlenecks in this area would warrant analysis in more detail. A low level 
of take-up of such initiatives may also be indicative of low demand for such initiatives. It 
is  possible  that  such  initiatives,  as  welcome  as  they  are  in  principle,  in  practice  have  a 
suboptimal cost-benefit ratio for participating administrations. 

Notwithstanding these broadly positive findings, assessing the programme’s effectiveness 
through other (documentary) sources of evidence proved to be challenging. In particular, 
data  collection  via  final  technical  and  implementation  reports,  especially  for  technical 
assistance,  was  found  to  produce  disparate  types  of  data  that  could  not  be  analysed 
easily. This was underlined in the economic analysis carried out as part of the 16 case 
studies, where it was not possible to fully determine the extent to which the programme 
had a measurable effect on reducing illicit trade and fraudulent activities. However, it is 
necessary to give a caveat, which is, that assessing the impact on illicit trade through any 
EU  initiative  is  fraught  with  challenges  and  complexities  due  to  the  dynamic  and 
unknown aspects of illicit activities that operate across the EU.  

Conclusion 3 - the programme produces several positive external side effects. 

The  programme  generated  a  number  of  positive  external  side  effects,  which  further 
enhanced its  effectiveness  in  protecting the  EU’s financial interests.  First  and foremost, 
the acquisition of modern equipment generated a number of positive effects including the 
detection  of  additional  illegal  activities  that  were  not  originally  covered  under  the 
programme.  This  included  the  detection  of  illegal  drugs,  weapons  and  artefacts.  The 
detection of these substances or objects provides increased security to Member States and 
the  EU,  and  has  an  impact  that  goes  beyond  the  protection  of  financial  interests  (i.e. 
increased public safety, increased safety for users of the equipment and further hindering 
organised crime groups).  

Conclusion  4  -  the  programme’s  benefits  outweigh  the  costs  incurred,  but  more 
guidance and simplified processes  could  improve efficiency in the future, and help 
address challenges in terms of uneven administrative capacity in the Member States. 

The stakeholders found the programme’s benefits outweigh the costs incurred. Though 
only  indicative,  the  time  taken  to  prepare  applications  was  found  to  have  decreased 
compared to the results of the 2018 mid-term evaluation, but the time taken to fulfil the 
reporting  requirements  increased  slightly.  Despite  these  conclusions,  stakeholders 
confirmed  that  they  were  not  deterred  from  applying  to  the  programme,  and  did  not 
face any significant administrative costs or red tape due to the reporting requirements. 
Thus, despite any costs incurred through the programme, the burden was largely found 
to be appropriate given the benefits it generated.  

62 

 
Overall, the main direct costs during both the application and implementation phases are 
staffing costs. On average, applicants to the programme spent 15.3 full-time person days 
preparing and applying, compared to  an average of 14.4 full-time person days fulfilling 
the reporting requirements. 

The programme was found to generate both direct and indirect benefits. Direct benefits 
included the possibility to acquire  technical assistance  equipment where Member States 
do  not  have  available  funding  to  invest  in  technologically  advanced  and  expensive 
equipment. It therefore acts as an enabler for Member State authorities.  

By  contrast,  training  projects  were  found  to  generate  more  indirect  benefits  for 
stakeholders.  These  benefits  can  be  seen  to  contribute  to  an  EU  level  network  of 
stakeholders, collectively working together to combat fraud, though measuring the impact 
of these network effects is challenging.  

However,  there  are  also  indications  that  different  levels  of  administrative  capacity  in 
some  entities  at  national  or  regional  level  in  the  Member  States  may  hamper  the 
programme’s  ability  to  deliver  results  and  achieve  its  objectives.  As  a  result,  the 
argument was made by the consultant in the study that not all Member States were able 
to benefit equally from the programme due to national organisational circumstances. 

-  Recommendation 4: the application and reporting procedures in the programme 
should  take  into  account  the  administrative  capacity  of  Member  States,  and  to 
this effect, the Commission should issue suitable guidance material.  

The  Commission  (OLAF)  already  makes  available  a  number  of  documents  to  guide 
potential applicants on what is expected from them. This includes the annual work plan 
and  the  special  calls  for  proposals.  In  addition,  OLAF  conducts  a  wide  range  of 
awareness  raising  initiatives  by  presenting  the  funding  opportunities  to  networks, 
stakeholder  groups  and  forums  such  as  the  GAF74  meetings  with  the  Council,  the 
COCOLAF committee meetings, meetings among the AFCOS members, Customs 2020 
expert teams, and reaching out to networks of lawyers and PIF organisations. All relevant 
information is always published on the Commission websites and on the electronic portal 
that  collects  all  Commission  funding  and  tender  opportunities,  so  that  it  also  reaches 
NGOs. The call notices are published in all EU languages in the EU Official Journal.  

Lastly, and importantly, the Commission operates a dedicated  email address (functional 
mailbox)  at  OLAF  for  questions  or  observations  on  the  Hercule  III  programme,  24/7 
accessible. Applicants can also contact OLAF via its website. 

74    Groupe  Anti-Fraude:  The Working Party on Combating Fraud of the Council of the  European Union 
deals with questions related to the protection of the financial interests of the EU and the fight against 
fraud  and  other  illegal  activities  affecting  those  interests.  It  also  works  on  issues  concerning  the 
European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) and its supervisory committee. 

63 

 
                                                           
It  appears  feasible  to  go  a  step  further  in  making  more  detailed  guidance  material 
available to all potential applicants. Making such information available upfront and to all 
potential applicants also levels the playing field to those who decide to apply.  

The Commission  could  issue this  guidance in  various  formats, including  in  the form  of 
hypothetical questions and answers (Q&A). Another option would be to include several 
guidance questions directly in the corresponding fields of the application. The questions 
could help applicants understand the type of information requested, thus simplifying the 
drafting  process  for  applicants  and  increasing  the  quality  of  the  applications.  The 
contractor provided suggestions for questions that could be included in the application for 
technical assistance. 

At the same time, any further initiative to disseminate information about the programme 
and  provide  guidance  to  applicants  should  be  proportionate  to  the  Commission’s 
available resources. The Hercule III programme, like its successor, the UAFP, are among 
the smallest programmes managed by the Commission, and thus do not offer an economy 
of scale comparable to other programmes. 

Conclusion 5 - the programme is both internally and externally coherent. 

The analysis of the programme’s internal coherence did not uncover any major overlaps 
between the different activities identified.  

With regard to external coherence, the analysis of the programme against other relevant 
EU  policies  and  pieces  of  legislation  (i.e.  the  PIF  Directive,  the  EPPO  Regulation,  the 
Fiscalis  and  the  Customs  2020  programmes,  the  AFIS  platform  and  the  Justice 
programme) uncovered no major overlaps or inconsistencies. 

-  Recommendation  5:  the  programme  should  maintain  alignment  and  coherence 

with other relevant pieces of legislation.  

The  Commission  already  systematically  runs  a  series  of  consultations  to  ensure  full 
alignment and coherence between the Hercule III programme (and likewise the EU’s new 
anti-fraud programme) and other EU instruments. This applies notably to links with other 
programmes in the customs or justice  policy areas. These consultations should continue 
unabated,  particularly  since  new  programmes  are  currently  being  implemented  at  the 
beginning of a new financing period. 

Conclusion  6  -  the  programme  was  found  to  have  strong  short  to  medium-term 
effects; evidence of long-term impacts was less tangible. 

The  sustainability  of  the  programme’s  effect  was  mainly  achieved  through  the  short  to 
medium-term impacts generated by beneficiaries running projects or events funded by 
the programme. For technical assistance, whether the project produces long-term impacts 
is highly dependent on the nature and additional costs linked to the equipment or tools 
purchased.  Thus,  as  long  as  the  equipment  is  in  use,  the  impact  extends  beyond  the 
project  lifetime.  However,  the  potential  costs  of  software  updates  and  general 

64 

 
maintenance were raised as factors that could hinder the sustainability/durability of the 
programme’s effects, as in most cases these costs are not covered by the project funding.  

Training, however, provided greater indications of the programme achieving a long-term 
impact.  Participants  actively  sharing  the  competences  and  knowledge  gained  during 
(training  and  other)  events  with  their  peers  and  colleagues  in  other  Member  States 
seemed to produce more long-term effects. However, measuring the exact extent of these 
effects over the longer term is difficult.  

-  Recommendation  6:  for  technical  assistance,  the  programme  could  include 
specific costs under future calls for proposals for technical upgrades or software 
updates to secure the long-term impact of the investment.  

The Hercule III Regulation had no specific provision to fund equipment maintenance or 
updates  of  software,  although  in  certain  projects,  the  cost  of  maintenance  in  technical 
assistance  was  accepted  for  the  duration  of  the  grant  agreement,  as  included  in  the 
applicant’s bid for funding.  

Conclusion 7 – there is clear added value in taking EU action under the programme. 

The programme is widely seen as providing EU added value. It does so by acting as an 
enabler and a driver for Member States to use a higher standard of equipment to detect 
and  reduce  the  risk  of  fraud.  It  also  acts  as  a  facilitator  for  EU-level  cooperation 
between  Member  States,  specifically  by  funding  training,  conferences,  databases  and 
tools. The programme was also seen to provide greater legitimacy to the work carried 
out  at  national  level  through  the  additional  credence  by  being  associated  with  the 
programme and by default, with OLAF.  

There is also a widespread belief that withdrawing the programme would have a negative 
impact on the fight against fraud at EU level, as it is likely to increase fragmentation in 
the action taken across the Member States. 

Conclusion 8 – It was challenging to fully assess the true impact of the programme 
under the current monitoring and evaluation framework applicable to Hercule III. 

One  of  the  main  difficulties  in  evaluating  the  programme  is  accurately  assessing  the 
direct  impacts  (i.e.  the  magnitude  of  impacts  on  supressing  illicit  and  fraudulent 
activities).  It  remains  crucial  to  improve  the  current  monitoring  and  evaluation 
framework for future evaluations of the programme. This was emphasised not only in this 
study  but  also  in  the  mid-term  evaluation,  which  highlighted  that  the  outcomes  of 
technical  assistance  projects  were  limited  and  it  was  not  possible  to  measure  the  key 
performance indicators listed in Article 4(a)-(c) of the Hercule III Regulation.  

In the study, the contractor found that there is scope for the programme to develop and 
implement  other  indicators  that  could  monitor  the  programme  more  closely.  As  the 
current  performance  framework  provides  top-level  indicators,  it  would  benefit  from 
having  indicators  and  judgement  criteria  set  at  the  level  of  eligible  actions.  This  is 
particularly  important  given  the  subtle  variations  found  in  the  performance  of  the 

65 

 
 
programme  between  different  eligible  actions  (i.e.  the  direct  and  indirect  effect 
differences between technical assistance and training) as part of this evaluation.  

It is important to outline, however, that even with better data collection and monitoring, it 
would  still  be  a  challenge  to  gauge  the  true  impact  of  the  programme.  Differences 
between national contexts and levels of illicit activity have a direct impact on the type of 
data that beneficiaries can provide. In addition, variations in the type of projects funded 
under the programme can create challenges in  assessing the  programme’s  overall direct 
impact.  

-  Recommendation  8:  the  programme  should  try  to  improve  the  current 
monitoring and evaluation framework by developing more specific indicators 
set at the level of eligible actions.  

It  should  be  noted  that  for  the  EU’s  new  anti-fraud  programme,  like  for  all  EU 
programmes,  the  Commission  is  fine-tuning  an  enhanced  monitoring  and  evaluation 
framework  developed  for  programmes  run  under  the  multiannual  budget.  Similarly, 
Article 12(4) of the UAFP Regulation (EU) 2021/785  provides a performance reporting 
system to ensure that data for monitoring implementation and evaluating the results of the 
programme are collected efficiently, effectively, and in a timely manner.  

Conclusion  9  –  creating  a  centralised  database  of  projects  implemented  under  the 
programme would provide a readily accessible evidence base for future evaluations. 

The analysis of qualitative and quantitative data  enabled this  evaluation  study to  assess 
(in part) the effectiveness of the programme both at the level of individual  projects and 
for the programme as a whole. The contractor did so by creating their own Excel database 
of  a  sample  of  projects  and  compiling  data  available  in  the  consulted  final  technical, 
financial  and  implementation  reports,  as  well  as  event  feedback  surveys  and  post-event 
surveys  for  training  submitted  by  beneficiaries.  The  consultant’s  database  contained 
information on both training and technical assistance projects and actions. It enabled the 
contractor to formulate statements on key indicators of the effectiveness of the different 
actions and to uncover trends and changes to the achievements of funded projects.  

However, given the scope of this study, only the data on a sample of 98 analysed projects 
were  included  in  their  database.  It  would  aid  future  monitoring  and  evaluation  work  to 
have readily accessible key indicators on implemented projects, and uniform data formats 
that enable users to compare different projects.  

-  Recommendation  9:  OLAF  should  centralise  data  collection  and  storage  on 
implemented  projects  in  a  single  database  to  facilitate  access  to  project 
documents and overviews of results. 

The  Commission  will  look  at  appropriate  and  efficient  ways  to  implement  these 
recommendations. 

------ 

66 

 
 
 
 
ANNEX 1 - PROCEDURAL INFORMATION 

1.  LEAD DG, DECIDE PLANNING REFERENCE 

  Lead  DG:  OLAF,  which  has  managed  and  implemented  the  Hercule  III 

programme 

  DeCIDE Planning reference: PLAN/2020/8105 

2.  ORGANISATION AND TIMING 

In  line  with  Article  13(2)  of  Regulation  (EU)  No  250/2014,  which  mandates  an 
independent  final  evaluation,  the  European  Commission  (OLAF)  used  a  DG  TAXUD 
framework contract to take out a specific contract75 with an external contractor to conduct 
a study  to  underpin  this  Commission  evaluation.  The external  study  was  carried  out  by 
the  Belgian  subsidiary  RAMBOLL  Management  S.A./N.V.76  of  the  Danish  mother 
company  RAMBOLL  Management  Consulting  A/S77,  in  a  consortium  with  London 
Economics  (UK)  and  Università  Cattolica  (IT)78.  The  study  ran  between  October  2020 
and October 2021.  

  An inter-service steering group (ISG) of Commission departments79 was set up to 
steer  this  evaluation  process.  The  ISG  reviewed  the  roadmap80,  the  terms  of 
reference for the external contract, the inception phase of the study and the end-
of-fieldwork report (quality assessment). 
ISG meetings were held with the contractor Ramboll: 
-  on the inception report – 7 December 2020 
-  on the interim evaluation report – 18 June 2021 
-  on the quality assessment of the draft final report – 13 September 2021. 

 

3.  EXCEPTIONS TO THE BETTER REGULATION GUIDELINES 

The Commission (OLAF) obtained an exception that it did not have to run an open public 
consultation on the evaluation. Instead, it ran an open public consultation on the roadmap 
in June 2020 and targeted consultations of stakeholders in 2021. 

4.  CONSULTATION OF THE RSB 

Not applicable. 

75  Specific  contract  of  21.10.2020,  No  SI2.835825  (reopening  competition  under  Framework  Contract 
reference TAXUD/2020/AO-20/OLAF), implementing framework contract No TAXUD/2019/CC/148, 
the latter signed on 6 May 2019. 

76  Belgian  registration  number:  867596506;  35  Square  de  Meeûs,  1000  Brussels,  +32  2  737  96  80, 

https://ramboll.com; https://ramboll.com 

77  Danish registration number: 60997918; Hannemans Allé 53, 2300 Copenhagen, PIC 932241102. 

78  An Italian private research university; Largo Agostino Gemelli, 1, 20123 Milano, Italy. 

79  With  officials  from  OLAF,  the  Commission’s  Secretariat-General,  DG  TAXUD,  DG  JUST,  DG 

BUDG and the Commission’s Legal Service. 

80  The  evaluation  roadmap  was  publicly  accessible  for  comments  between  15  June  2020  and  13  July 

2020: no feedback was received from the public. 

67 

 
                                                           
5.  EVIDENCE, SOURCES AND QUALITY 

The Commission (OLAF) made the following analysis of  the assessment carried out by 
the contractor of the quality of the 49 sources of evidence consulted, for each evaluation 
(sub)questions to be answered per evaluation criterion: 

Table 1 – Overview of the number of sources consulted and their quality assessment 

Evaluation 
criterion  
(No 
of 
consulted) 

sources 

Strong 
quality 

More  than 
satisfactory 

Indicative 
not 
but 
conclusive 
evidence 

Weak 
evidence 

Null 

RELEVANCE (8) 

6 
sources 

2 sources* 

INTERNAL 
COHERENCE (2) 

EXTERNAL 
COHERENCE (6) 

EFFECTIVENESS 
(16) 

2 sources* 

4 sources 

2 sources* 

5 sources 

10 sources 

1 source* 

EFFICIENCY (10) 

4 sources 

5 sources 

1  source* 
(mid-term 
evaluation) 

0 
sources** 

EU 
VALUE (5) 

ADDED 

3 sources 

2 sources* 

SUSTAINABILITY 
(2) 

Total sources (49) 

6 

18 

sources 

2 
(Long-
term 
effects) 
23 

0 
sources* 

2 

- 

Related 
evaluation 
(sub)question 
(when  only  1 
or 
2 
indicative 
sources) 

*  Relevance 
of  operational 
obj. 2 and 4 
*  HIII  mid-
term 
evaluation 
*  Coherence 
with 
EU 
legislation 
*  Negative 
external 
factors 
*  Regulatory 
costs 
** 
Enforcement 
costs 
Results 
* 
achieved 
at 
national  level 
without 
the 
programme 
* 
level 
initiatives 

National 

Just  under  half  of  the  sources  consulted  were  noted  as  indicative  but  not  conclusive 
evidence  (23/49),  followed  by  the  more  than  satisfactory  evidence  (18/49).  The 
effectiveness  of  the  programme  was  substantiated  by  most  sources  (16).  The  consulted 
sources  are  previous  evaluations  and  studies,  key  policy  documents,  legislative 
documents, annual reporting, academic literature and (other) studies.  

However, both the criteria on internal coherence and sustainability (long-term effects of 
the  programme)  had  only  two  sources  of  reference,  presenting  indicative  but  not 
conclusive evidence (the 2018 Hercule III mid-term evaluation and the 2014 PIF report 
for  internal  coherence;  the  Hercule  II  final  evaluation  and  the  Hercule  III  mid-term 
evaluation for the sustainability criterion).  

68 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
The  contractor  RAMBOLL  carried  out  a  detailed  and  systematic  review  of  Hercule  III 
legal  texts  and  policy  documents  to  screen  for  any  potential  inconsistencies,  overlaps, 
contradictions, or duplications across the programme’s action areas.  

The  findings  on  internal  coherence  were  based  on  three  sources:  desk  research, 
feedback received during interviews and responses to the applicants’ survey. 

69 

 
ANNEX 2 - STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION – SYNOPSIS REPORT 

This synopsis report on consultations is structured as follows:  

1.  Introduction (and exemption to the scope) 
2.  Stakeholder consultation activities – methodology and limitations 
a.  interviews - exploratory and in-depth interviews 
b.  case study interviews 
c.  targeted online surveys 

3.  Comparison of results from different consultation activities 
4.  Integration of consultation results in the answers to the evaluation questions 

1. Introduction (and exemption to the scope) 

This synopsis report presents the stakeholder consultation activities carried out as part of the 
final  evaluation  of  the  Hercule  III  programme.  The  purpose  is  to  explain  the  stakeholder 
groups consulted as part of the study and the consultation methods, timings, questions asked, 
and the limitations faced in the process.  

The  aim  of  the  report  is  to  compare  and  contrast  the  results  of  the  different  consultation 
activities,  including  interdependencies,  synergies  and/or  contradictions.  This  includes 
explaining  how  far  the  results  were  taken  into  consideration  in  the  assessment  of  the 
evaluation questions provided in the final report.  

OLAF requested an exemption to not conduct an open public consultation as part of this 
evaluation  process,  which  was  granted  by  the  Commission’s  Secretariat-General.  Instead,  it 
ran a consultation on the roadmap in June 2020 and targeted consultations of stakeholders in 
2021 by the external contractor RAMBOLL in the course of the study. The motivation for that 
approach  is  that  the  primary  beneficiaries  of  the  Hercule  III  programme  are  national 
administrations and public servants. The programme’s main goal is to facilitate and enhance 
cooperation in tackling financial irregularities, fraud, corruption or other offences detrimental 
to  the  EU  budget  between  national  authorities  within  the  European  Union  and  with 
participating countries. What defines this enhanced cooperation are aspects such as financial 
support  to  facilitate  and  secure  the  exchange  of  information,  training,  exchange  of  staff, 
cooperation in the field, purchase of dedicated material and tools, availability of information, 
working  visits,  exchange  of  good  practices,  networking  and  many  more.  All  of  these  affect 
almost exclusively the national administrations of the Member States. Consulting the national 
administrations and beneficiaries (participants to – training and other – events) on a variety of 
issues  through  targeted  consultations  is  therefore  the  most  important  feature  of  the 
methodology of the current final evaluation. 

Through the external contractor, performing an in-depth final evaluation of Hercule III, OLAF 
is  seeking  targeted  feedback  from  three  groups  of  stakeholders  through  dedicated  online 
surveys to request and assess their opinion on the impact of the programme between 2014 and 

70 

 
 
today (beneficiaries of grants,  unsuccessful applicants,  participants to  procured events,  users 
of procured services and databases financed by the programme). 

2. Stakeholder consultation activities – methodology and approach  

The stakeholder consultation process for this study included the following activities: 
- 

interviews 

o  exploratory interviews and in-depth (semi-structured) interviews 
o  case study interviews 
three targeted online surveys. 

- 
The  following  section  summarises  the  approach  taken  at  each  stage  of  the  stakeholder 
consultation. 

a)  Interviews - exploratory interviews and in-depth interviews 

At the design phase of the study, four exploratory interviews with six stakeholders in OLAF 
were carried out, as displayed in Table 1. The aim of the exploratory interviews was to gather 
insights into the functioning of the Hercule III programme and gain a better understanding of 
the  funded  projects.  The  findings  from  these  exploratory  interviews  fed  directly  into  the 
revised evaluation questions matrix, the refined intervention logic and into the development of 
the method for the remaining stages of the project. 

Table 1 - Stakeholders consulted in exploratory interviews 

Stakeholders 

Subject 

Number of interviews 

OLAF, Unit C3 

Forensic training 

OLAF, unit B1 

Databases 

OLAF, unit D1 

Conferences 

Grants, JRC 

Total 

1 

1 

2 

4 

During the evidence collection phase, targeted semi-structured interviews were conducted to 
collect  more  details  on  why  stakeholders  hold  certain  opinions,  and  to  collect  additional 
evidence  on evaluation  questions for which qualitative data  were judged to  be an important 
source.  

Overall,  25  semi-structured  interviews  were  conducted  with  stakeholders  in  EU  institutions 
and bodies, with partner organisations and with the AFCOS in the Member State authorities. 
Table 2 gives a full overview of the stakeholders interviewed as part of this study. 

71 

 
 
 
 
Table 2 - Stakeholders consulted as part of the in-depth semi-structured interviews 

Stakeholder group 

Stakeholder type 

Number 
interviews 

of 

conducted 

EU institutions and bodies 

OLAF 

DG TAXUD 

DG JUST 

DG BUDG 

JRC 

Subtotal EU institutions and bodies 

5 

1 

2 

1 

2 

11 

Partners 

Member State AFCOS 

4 (ES, HR, DK, AT) 

COCOLAF 

PIF associations 

2 (ES, EE) 

3 (DE, IT, NL) 

Subtotal partners 

Unsuccessful applicants 

that  submitted  both 
unsuccessful 

and 

Applicants 
successful 
applications 

Total 

9 

3 

2 

25 

The  data  collected  through  the  interviews  were  summarised  in  individual  interview  reports 
after each interview. These were clearly labelled, and their structure was based on a template 
following the same format. The data collected was then coded and analysed using the QDA 
software  NVivo®.  This  meant  that  each  response  from  interviewees  was  assigned  to  the 
evaluation sub-questions and categorised by topic, providing insights into the questions.  

This  enabled  the  study  team  to  give  detailed  answers  to  each  evaluation  sub-question  for 
which  the  interviews  provided  evidence  and  report  the  results  per  stakeholder  group.  The 
following  analysis  provides  answers  to  each  evaluation  sub-question.  Where  possible  and 
relevant,  the  results  are  broken  down  by  stakeholder  group.  Throughout  the  course  of  the 
interviews, several challenges were encountered, as listed in Table 3 overleaf. 

Table 3 - Problems and solutions for the interviews 

Problem/limitation  

Solution/mitigation  

The duration of the interview guides made it 
difficult  (especially  for  national  authorities), 
to cover all relevant questions in the allotted 
time.   

Overall  knowledge  and  awareness  of  the 
programme and its specific actions was not 
the 
widely 
stakeholder groups.  

known  across  each  of 

At the scheduling stage, interviewees were given an 
indication of the time needed for the interview. 

Where  there  was  not  enough  time,  the  study  team 
focused  on  a  number  of  set  key  questions.  These 
were  adapted  based  on  any  gaps  in  evidence 
identified and the knowledge of the interviewee.  

As  the  level  of  knowledge  and  experience  with  the 
Hercule 
the 
III  programme  was  different 
interview  respondents,  not  all  interviewees  were 
able  to  answer  questions  relating  to  all  evaluation 
criteria.  The  flexible  approach  to  the  design  of  the 
interview  guides  enabled  the  contractor  to  collect 

for 

72 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
information,  taking  into  account  the  experience  of 
the  interviewee  with  the  programme.  For  instance, 
unsuccessful  applicants  were  not  asked  to  give 
their  opinion  on  the  effectiveness  of  their  projects. 
Where  limited  evidence  was  collected  on  specific 
funded  actions  and  areas  of  Hercule  III,  the  other 
stakeholder  consultation  activities,  as  well  as  desk 
research helped to fill any gaps.  

b)  Case study interviews 

Each  case  study  included  the  collection  of  documentary  evidence  and  interviews  with 
stakeholders involved in operating the purchased equipment. 

The case study interviews were targeted at the staff of the organisation that received Hercule 
III  funding  for  projects.  The  study  team  intended  to  conduct  two  to  three  interviews  per 
project in the organisations concerned. The study team was able in all cases to interview the 
project  coordinator as the person in  charge of managing  the Hercule  III-funded project,  and 
they  also  conducted  interviews  with  staff  responsible  for  managing  and  operating  the 
equipment  purchased  and  trained  on  using  it.  Table  4  gives  the  exact  number  of  interviews 
conducted per case study. 

Table 4 - Stakeholders interviewed as part of the case studies 

Country 

Title of technical assistance action selected 

Case 
Study 
No. 

of 

Number 
persons 
interviewed 

1 

Bulgaria 

X-ray scanners  

Enhancing technical capacity 

2 

Hungary 

Monitoring equipment, hardware and software for the 
collection and analysis of different types of data. 

Technical capacity development  

3 

Latvia 

4 

Lithuania 

Strengthening  the  technical  capacity  of  investigative 
departments  of  the  State  Revenue  Service  of  the 
Republic of Latvia  

Operational  capacity  building  of 
document examination 

the 

forensic 

Strengthening of operational and technical capacities 
of  Lithuanian  customs  to  detect  smuggled  goods  in 
particular cigarettes 

Development of criminal intelligence technical tools 

5 

Malta 

Backscatter scanner 

Enhancing technical capacity 

2 

2  

3 

5 

3 

2 

1 

1 

3 

3 

73 

 
 
6 

Poland 

Backscatter scanner 

Fixed scanner 

7 

Romania 

Improved  special  investigation  methods  in  tackling 
high-profile organised crime groups smuggling at the 
EU’s eastern border (EASTEROS) 

Fraud  investigation  in  Brasov  County  with  digital 
forensic hardware and software 

8 

Spain 

Sniffer dogs 

Sunrise Hawk (IMSI catcher81) 

2 

1 

2 

3 

2 

4 

Total 

8 Member States  16 projects 

38 interviews 

c)  Online surveys  

The evidence collection phase included sending three targeted survey questionnaires to three 
core stakeholder groups:  

- 

applicants’  survey  –  to  complement  the  assessment  of  the  programme  by  gathering  the 
views  of  representatives  of  authorities  or  departments  who  have  applied  to  calls  for 
proposals  for  technical  assistance  or  training  activities  under  the  programme  over  the 
period 2014-2020 and whose applications were either successful or unsuccessful. OLAF 
provided contact details of applicants, in compliance with GDPR requirements.   

-  participants’  survey  –  to  target  beneficiaries/people  who  attended  events  funded  by  the 
Hercule  III  programme  over  the  period  2014-2020.  This  was  used  primarily  to  gather 
further insights on the programme, specifically on the training side; 

-  users’  survey  –  to  target  users  of  services  procured  by  the  programme  (i.e.  databases, 
statistics and IT tools and services to carry out chemical analysis of samples from tobacco 
and/or cigarette seizures) during the same period.  

Both  the  applicants  and  the  participants  surveys  were  launched  on  26 February  2021  and 
remained opened until 26 March 2021. The user survey was also launched on 26 February but 
remained open until 6 April 2021. 

Table  5  provides  an  overview  of  the  responses  per  survey  type,  as  well  as  the  number  of 
respondents the different surveys aimed to reach. 

Table 5 - Overview of the status of responses per survey type 

81  An  international  mobile  subscriber  identity-catcher,  or  IMSI-catcher,  is  a  telephone  eavesdropping  device 

used to intercept mobile phone traffic and tracking location data of mobile phone users. 

74 

 
                                                           
s
t
c
a
t
n
o
c

f
o
.
o
n

l

a
i
t
i
n
I

d
e
n
r
u
t
e
r

s

l
i

a
m
E

l

n
o
i
t
a
u
p
o
P

)
e
s
a
B

(

l

d
e
t
e
p
m
o
C

l

d
e
t
e
p
m
o
c

Total 
(Completed+ 
Partially 
completed) 

Response 
Rate 

y

l
l

a
i
t
r
a
P

512 

52 

460 

129 

15 

144 

31% 

432 

82 

350 

74 

34 

108 

Unknown82 

y
e
v
r
u
S

Applicants’ 
survey 

Participants 
of 
survey 

events 

of 

2474 

147 

2327 

143 

42 

185 

Unknown 

Users 
services 
survey 

Total 

3418 

281 

3137 

346 

91 

432 

The table below provides an overview of the number of responses per stakeholder type. It is 
important to note that the number of respondents is higher than that displayed in Table 5 as 
the design of the survey allowed respondents to select more than one option when choosing 
their organisation type. 

Table 6 - Online survey respondents – Type of stakeholder 

Survey 

Type of stakeholder 

Number  of 
respondents 

Applicants’ 
survey 

National law enforcement authorities (NLEAs) 

Research institutes/academia 

National tax administration 

Other83 

Non-profit organisations 

Local/regional customs authority 

Participants 
of events 
survey 

Local/regional law enforcement authority 

National ministry acting in the area of fight against fraud 

Local/regional tax administration 

National law enforcement authorities (NLEAs) 

Local/regional customs authority 

Other 

National tax administration 

National ministry acting in the area of fight against fraud 

58 

33 

23 

13 

13 

10 

9 

7 

5 

36 

16 

10 

7 

5 

82  As the surveys were sent using a snowballing technique by asking contact points to distribute the surveys to 

their users/participants, an accurate response rate cannot be generated.  

83  Respondents  reporting  that  they  belong  to  the  category  ‘other’  (13)  included  are  representatives  from 
lawyers’ associations, paying agencies and different departments within national public administrations. 

75 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
Users of 
services 
survey 

Local/regional law enforcement authority 

Legal practitioners: lawyers, solicitors, barristers 

Local/regional tax administration 

National law enforcement: customs authority 

Local/regional customs authority 

EU institutions/agencies 

National ministry acting in the area of fight against fraud 

Other 

National law enforcement: police 

3 

2 

1 

132 

37 

11 

7 

4 

4 

It was not possible to provide an accurate response rate for either the participants or the user 
survey as a snowball approach was used to distribute the surveys. For the participants’ survey, 
OLAF initially provided the contact details of organisers of events who distributed the survey 
among participants. For the user survey, OLAF contact points distributed the survey among 
beneficiaries of Hercule III services. In this case, it was also directly distributed among actual 
users of databases whose contact details were initially provided by OLAF. Table 7 notes the 
type of limitations encountered and the corresponding strategies taken to mitigate these issues. 

Table 7 - Problems and limitations associated with the online surveys  

Problems encountered 

Mitigation strategy 

The lack of direct contacts for 
users  of  databases  and 
participants  of  events  limited 
the  ability  to  send  the  survey 
directly 
relevant 
respondents.  

the 

to 

Due  to  COVID-19,  OLAF  were  unable  to  access  files  in  the  office 
directly, 
the 
organisers of events, participants of events, national contact points 
and users of services.  

information  consisted  of 

the  available  contact 

OLAF therefore took a hybrid approach. It sent one email for each 
survey where the organisers/national contact points were asked to 
forward the survey to the participants/users.  

A  number  of  respondents 
only  partially  completed  the 
survey.  

Follow-up  emails  sent  specifically  to  respondents  who  had  only 
partially completed the survey helped encourage more respondents 
to complete the survey. 

3. Comparison of results from different consultation activities  

The consultation activities targeted a wide range of stakeholders across  multiple governance 
levels  and  geographic  coverage.  Within  these  groups,  OLAF  consulted  a  wide  range  of 
stakeholders via the different consultation activities. The following table gives an overview of 
the stakeholders reached during the different consultation methods. 

Table 8 - Stakeholders reached through different consultation methods84 

Stakeholder category 

Interviews 

Surveys  Total85 

84  N/A means the group was not targeted, i.e. not expected to take part in a specific consultation activity. 

85 

In some cases, stakeholders took part in both the interviews and the surveys. Therefore, total numbers here 
are an estimate of the overall number of stakeholders consulted per category. 

76 

 
                                                           
National law enforcement authorities86  

EU institutions/agencies 

Partners 

Research institutes/academia 

National tax administration 

Non-profit organisations 

Local/regional customs authority 

Local/regional law enforcement authority 

National ministry acting in the area of fight against fraud 

Legal practitioners: lawyers, solicitors, barristers 

Local/regional tax administration 

Total 

38 

11 

9 

N/A 

N/A 

N/A 

N/A 

N/A 

N/A 

N/A 

N/A 

58 

230 

11 

N/A 

33 

30 

13 

63 

12 

18 

2 

6 

268 

22 

9 

33 

30 

13 

63 

12 

18 

2 

6 

418 

476 

Although the number of stakeholders consulted differs significantly across the different levels 
of  governance,  all  the  stakeholder  groups  identified  at  the  design  stage  of  the  study  were 
consulted. 

The  main  stakeholder  group  targeted  by  the  interviews  was  national  law  enforcement 
authorities,  as  they  remain  the  main  beneficiaries  and  final  users  of  the  funded  equipment 
(case study interviews). It also included representatives of EU institutions such as OLAF and 
partner  organisations  who  could  provide  insights  into  the  functioning  of  Hercule  III  and  its 
funded  actions.  For  the  surveys,  the  overview  table  shows  a  bias  towards  greater 
representation  of  national  law enforcement  authorities in  the sample  size  compared to  other 
groups. In terms of geographical coverage, overall, there is an even geographical distribution 
of  respondents,  although  there  was  less  representation  from  northern  and  central  European 
countries in the applicants’ survey. 

While it is impossible to consult a statistically representative sample of stakeholders for the 
EU as a whole, the study was designed to be as inclusive as possible. In addition, efforts were 
made to ensure geographical balance between interviewed stakeholders. To facilitate this, the 
study  team  conducted  interviews  in  the  language  of  the  interviewees  to  further  encourage 
participation.  

To ensure the representativeness of all stakeholder groups, the stakeholder consultations were 
designed to be complimentary in terms of the topic areas covered.  The topics and questions 
were  tailored  to  each  of  the  main  stakeholder  groups  while  ensuring  a  sufficient  degree  of 
overlap in terms of the evaluation questions. In particular, for the interviews, interview guides 
were  developed  per  stakeholder  group  and  the  online  surveys  were  sent  to  three  different 
target  groups  (applicants,  users  and  participants).  Each  of  these  areas  included  both  sub-
evaluation  questions  and  top-level  questions  to  give  respondents  the  opportunity  to  express 
more general views when they do not have full knowledge of the topic area.  

86  For  simplicity,  national  law  enforcement  authorities  refer  here  to  national  police  and  national  customs 

authorities. 

77 

 
                                                           
Triangulation  of  the  data  on  the  above  activities  revealed  that  the  stakeholder  views  were 
largely  consistent  with  similar  trends  emerging  throughout  and  within  stakeholder  types. 
While some differing views were found in each of the consultation activities, they were taken 
into account and adequately represented in the analysis, factoring in any potential bias.  

4. Integrating the consultation results in the answers to evaluation questions  

Table 10 shows the sources of evidence for each evaluation sub-question. In most cases, the 
evidence was collected via at least two stakeholder consultation activities.  

Table 9 - Ranking  

Symbol 

Description 

The evidence provided, while not comprehensive,  is of high quality and reliable 
to  draw  a  conclusion  (e.g.:  strong  quantitative  evidence  with  adequate  sample 
sizes  and  no  major  data  quality  or  reliability  issues;  or  a  wide  range  of  reliable 
qualitative sources, across which there is good triangulation). 

The evidence allows for good triangulation, and it covers all the indicators within 
each  sub-question.  However,  the  geographical  coverage  of  the  evidence  is  not 
complete and/or more detailed information might be required from other sources.  

The evidence is of good quality, but the geographical coverage of the evidence 
is not complete and not all the indicators within the sub-question are covered.  

This source of evidence is limited/weak and not suitable for triangulation on the 
sub-question. 

Not applicable or pending data collection (work in progress). 

78 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Table 10 - Coverage of evaluation (sub)questions by different stakeholder consultation activities 

Evaluation questions 

Sub-questions 

Relevance 

Interviews 

Applicants’ 
survey 

Participants 
survey 

Users 
survey 

the 
To  what  extent  have 
specific 
operational 
and 
objectives87  of  the  Hercule  III 
programme as established by 
Regulation  250/2014  proven 
to  be  and  remained  relevant 
general 
to 
objective  to  protect  the  EU’s 
financial interests?88 

achieve 

the 

To  what  extent  is  the  specific  objective  of  the  programme, 
in  preventing  and  combating  fraud,  corruption  and  any 
other  illegal  activities,  relevant  to  protecting  the  EU’s 
financial interests? 
To what extent is the operational objective of improving the 
prevention  and  investigation  of  fraud  and  other  illegal 
activities  (OP1)  relevant  to  protecting  the  EU’s  financial 
interests? 
To what extent is the operational objective of increasing the 
protection  of  the  EU’s  financial  interests  against  fraud  by 
facilitating  the  exchange  of  information,  experiences  and 
best practice (OP2) relevant to protecting the EU’s financial 
interests? 
To what extent is the operational objective of strengthening 
the  fight  against  fraud  and  other  illegal  activities  by 
providing  technical  and  operational  support  to  national 
authorities  (OP3)  relevant  to  protecting  the  EU’s  financial 
interests? 
To  what  extent  is  the  operational  objective  of  limiting  the 
currently known  exposure  of the  EU’s financial  interests to 
fraud,  corruption  and  other  illegal  activities  with  a  view  to 
reducing the development of an illegal economy in key risk 
areas  (OP4)  relevant  to  protecting  the  EU’s  financial 
interests? 

87  Legend: GO – general objective, SO – specific objective, OP – operational objective. 

88  This  question  has  been  reworded.  In  the  terms  of  reference,  it  was  originally  ‘To  what  extent  have  the  specific  and  operational  objectives  of  the  Hercule  III 
programme as established by Regulation 250/2014 proven to be and remain relevant for the general objective of the protection of the financial interests of the EU?’ 

79 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
the 

then 

To what extent is the operational objective of enhancing the 
degree  of  development  of  the  specific  legal  and  judicial 
protection  of  the  EU’s  financial  interests  against  fraud  by 
promoting  comparative  law  analysis  (OP5)  relevant  to 
protecting the financial interests of the EU? 
To  what  extent  was  the  Hercule  III  programme  relevant  to 
address 
relevant  problems  and  needs  of 
stakeholders  (national  competent  authorities,  enforcement 
agencies  etc.)  related  to  protecting  the  EU’s  financial 
interests? 
To what extent is the Hercule III programme still relevant to 
address  the  current  and  new  problems  and  needs  of 
stakeholders  (national  competent  authorities,  enforcement 
agencies  etc.)  related  to  protecting  the  EU’s  financial 
interests? 
To  what  extent  have  technical  activities  proven  to  be  and 
remain  relevant  to  achieving  its  operational  and  specific 
objectives (OPs 1, 2 & 3)?   
To  what  extent  have  training  activities  proven  to  be  and 
remain  relevant  to  achieving  its  operation  and  specific 
objectives (OPs 1, 2 & 4)? 

To  what  extent  have  support  for  conferences  and  legal 
studies  proven  to  be  and  remain  relevant  to  achieving  its 
operational and specific objectives (OPs 1, 2 & 5)? 

To what extent is the Hercule 
III  programme 
to 
address 
the  problems  and 
needs  related  to  protecting 
the EU’s financial interests? 

relevant 

To  what  extent  have 
the 
activities  of  programme  as 
established  by  Regulation 
250/2014  proven  to  be  and 
remain  relevant  for  achieving 
its  operational  and  specific 
objectives? 

Coherence 

To  what  extent  are 
the 
different  interventions  of  the 
programme  coherent  among 
each other? 

To  what  extent  are  there  complementarities,  synergies  or 
overlaps  between  the  different  types  of  activities  (such  as 
between training and technical assistance, e.g. in the area 
of digital forensics)? 

80 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
is 

To  what  extent 
this 
intervention  coherent  with 
other  measures  or  actions  at 
have 
EU 
contributed  to  the  protection 
of 
financial 
EU’s 
the 
interests? 

level 

that 

Effectiveness 
Technical assistance 
the 
To  what  extent  have 
assistance 
technical 
interventions  contributed 
to 
preventing  and  combating 
fraud,  corruption  and  any 
other 
activities 
affecting  the  EU’s  financial 
interests (SO1)89? 

illegal 

To what extent are there complementarities, contradictions 
or  overlaps  between 
the  programme  and  other  EU 
legislation and measures, such as:  

  Directive 2017/1371 on the protection of the EU’s financial 

interests 

  Regulation 2017/1939 setting the European Public 

Prosecutor’s Office  

  Anti-fraud Information systems (AFIS) 

To  what  extent  are  there  synergies,  complementarities, 
contradictions  or  overlaps  between  the  programme  and 
other EU programmes such as:  
  Fiscalis 2020 
  Customs 2020 
  The Justice programme 

To  what  extent  has  the  implementation  of  the  technical 
assistance  activities 
the 
programme’s  specific  objective  of  preventing  and 
combating fraud, corruption and any other illegal activities?  

contributed 

reaching 

to 

89  The question was added from the terms of reference (p. 11) where it stated a need to understand the extent to which the programme is delivering its specific and 

operational objectives. 

81 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
the 
To  what  extent  have 
assistance 
technical 
interventions  contributed 
to 
improving  the  prevention  and 
investigation  of 
fraud  and 
other  illegal  activities  through 
an  enhanced 
transnational 
and 
multidisciplinary 
cooperation (OP1)? 

operational 

To what extent have technical 
support 
and 
activities  given 
to  national 
in  particular 
investigations, 
law 
customs 
and 
authorities, 
enforcement 
the 
contributed 
to 
strengthening  of 
fight 
against fraud and other illegal 
activities (OP 2 and 3)? 

the 

How  did  technical  assistance 
activities contribute to limiting 
the currently known exposure 
of the EU’s financial  interests 
to fraud, corruption and other 

to  ensuring 

to  specialised  and 

To  what  extent  have  the  technical  assistance  activities 
contributed  to  providing  specific  knowledge  facilitating 
transnational  cooperation  and  cooperation  with 
the 
Commission (Article 8(a)(i))? 
To  what  extent  have  the  technical  assistance  activities 
contributed 
technically  advanced 
equipment  and  effective  information  technology  (IT)  tools 
facilitating  transnational  cooperation  and  cooperation  with 
the Commission (Article 8(a)(i))? 
To  what  extent  have  the  technical  assistance  activities 
contributed 
the  necessary  support  and 
facilitating  investigations?  In  particular,  the  setting  up  of 
joint investigation teams and cross-border operations? 
To  what  extent  have  technical  and  operational  support 
activities  contributed  to  enhancing  staff  exchanges  for 
specific projects, in particular in the field of the fight against 
cigarette smuggling and counterfeiting (Article 8(a)(iii))? 
To  what  extent  have  technical  and  operational  support 
activities  contributed  to  providing  support  for  the  law 
enforcement authorities of the Member States in their fight 
against illegal cross-border activities? 
To  what  extent  have  technical  and  operational  support 
activities  contributed  to  building  information  technology 
capacity  throughout  participating  countries  by  developing 
and  providing  specific  databases  and  IT  tools  facilitating 
data access and analysis? 
To  what  extent  have  technical  and  operational  support 
activities  contributed 
increasing  data  exchange, 
developing  and  providing  IT  tools  for  investigations,  and 
monitoring intelligence work? 
How did technical assistance activities contribute to limiting 
the currently known exposure of the EU’s financial interests 
to fraud in the key risk area of cigarette smuggling? 

to 

82 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
illegal activities with a view to 
reducing  the  development  of 
illegal  economy  in  key  risk 
areas? 

How did technical assistance activities contribute to limiting 
the currently known exposure of the EU’s financial interests 
to fraud in the key risk area of counterfeiting? 

Training  

contributed 

To  what  extent  have  training 
activities 
to 
improving  the  prevention  and 
investigation  of 
fraud  and 
other  illegal  activities  through 
an  enhanced 
transnational 
and 
multidisciplinary 
cooperation (SO1)? 

To  what  extent  have  training 
the 
facilitated 
activities 
information, 
of 
exchange 
experience  and  best  practice 
with  a  view  to  strengthening 
fraud 
the 
fight 
detrimental 
the  EU’s 
financial interests? 

against 
to 

To  what  extent  have  training 
activities 
to 
develop  the  legal  and  judicial 
the  EU’s 
of 
protection 

contributed 

reaching 

Has the implementation of the training activities contributed 
to 
the  programme’s  specific  objective  of 
preventing  and  combating  fraud,  corruption  and  any  other 
illegal activities? 
To  what  extent  have  training  activities  contributed  to 
improving  the  prevention  of  other  illegal  activities  by 
enhancing transnational and multidisciplinary cooperation? 

To  what  extent  have  training  activities  facilitated  the 
exchange  of  experience  and  best  practice  between  the 
relevant  authorities  in  the  participating  countries,  including 
specialised 
law  enforcement  services,  as  well  as 
representatives of international organisations? 
To  what  extent  have  training  activities  facilitated  the 
coordination  of  activities  of  participating  countries,  and 
representatives of international organisations? 
To  what  extent  have  training  activities  facilitated  the 
dissemination  of  knowledge,  particularly  on  better 
identification of risk for investigative purposes? 
To  what  extent  have  training  activities  contributed  to 
developing  high-profile 
including 
studies? 

research  activities, 

83 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
financial interests? 

To  what  extent  have  training  activities  contributed  to 
improving 
and 
academics? 

practitioners 

cooperation 

between 

To what extent have training activities contributed to further 
raising the awareness of the judiciary and other branches of 
the  legal profession for the protection of the  EU’s financial 
interests? 

Overall effectiveness 

To  what  extent  have  external 
factors  affected  (positively  or 
the  delivery  of 
negatively) 
results  and  achievement  of 
objectives90? 

To  what  extent  have  positive  external  factors  affected  the 
delivery of results and achievement of objectives? 

To what extent  have  negative external factors affected the 
delivery of results and achievement of objectives? 

assistance 

To what extent have both the 
technical 
and 
training  activities  contributed 
for 
to 
the  EU’s  priorities 
smart, 
and 
inclusive growth? 

sustainable 

To  what  extent  have  the  technical  assistance  activities 
contributed  to  fostering  a  better  understanding  of  EU  and 
national mechanisms? 

To what extent have the training activities contributed to the 
EU’s priorities of smart, sustainable and inclusive growth? 

Efficiency 
To  what  extent  have 
the 
been 
desired 
achieved  at  reasonable  costs 

effects 

What regulatory costs (direct and enforcement costs) have 
been  borne  by  the  EU  through  the  implementation  and 
monitoring of the Hercule III programme? 

90  This  evaluation  question  has  been  added  to  take  into  account  the  requirement  in  the  terms  of  reference  to  explore  ‘the  external  factors  affecting  (positively  or 

negatively) the delivery of results and achievement of objectives of the programme (p.11). 

84 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
on the basis of a cost/benefits 
analysis  (with  quantification 
and qualitative analysis)? 

Could  the  same  degree  of 
effects  have  been  achieved 
with  lower  costs  with  simpler 
procedures, 
less 
administrative  burden  and/or 

involving 

What direct costs (administrative burden, application costs, 
compliance  costs,  hassle  costs)  have  been  borne  by 
beneficiaries  of  technical  activities,  anti-fraud  training,  and 
legal training and studies? 
What  enforcement  costs  (information  and  monitoring, 
inspections,  adjudication/  litigations)  have  been  borne  by 
beneficiaries  of  technical  activities,  anti-fraud  training,  and 
legal training and studies? 
What  direct  regulatory  benefits  (increase  in  the  number  of 
number  of  illicit  goods  identified,  faster  detection  rates) 
have  been  achieved 
for  different  stakeholders?  (EU, 
beneficiaries, participants at events) 
What indirect regulatory benefits91 (reduction in fraud crime 
and improvements in safety at the EU/ national level) have 
been 
(EU, 
different 
beneficiaries, participants at events) 
Are  the  costs  and  benefits  reasonable  in  order  to  achieve 
the desired effects of the programme? 
To what extent were the activities to achieve the objectives 
of  the  programme  made  available  in  due  time  for  the 
beneficiaries? 
Are  there  any  obstacles  of  an  administrative  or  financial 
nature  which  have  discouraged  certain  categories  of 
potential  beneficiaries  to  apply  to  calls  for  tenders  or  calls 
for proposals? 
Could the same degree of effects have been achieved with 
lower costs? 

stakeholders? 

achieved 

for 

91  The Better Regulation Guidelines (BRG) define ‘indirect benefits’ as being the ‘spill-over effects from compliance by the regulated entity with the new obligation; 
wider  macroeconomic  benefits  (GDP,  productivity,  employment  rates,  etc.);  and  other  non-monetisable  benefits  such  as  fundamental  rights,  social  cohesion, 
reduce gender discrimination, improved security/stability etc.’ (p.69 of the BRG toolbox). 

85 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
with  different  implementation 
mechanisms? 

Could the same degree of effects have been achieved with 
simpler  procedures  at  the  different  decision-making  and 
funding stages? 

Could  the  use  of  other  implementation  mechanisms  have 
provided for better efficiency? 

Is  there  evidence  of  EU  added  value  resulting  from  the 
programme at the national or regional levels? 
To  what  extent  could  the  same  results  be  achieved  at 
national and regional levels without EU intervention? 

n/a  

EU added value 
Has  the  programme  allowed 
delivering  results  that  could 
not,  or  to  a  lesser  extent,  be 
achieved  by 
interventions 
undertaken  at  national  or 
regional level? 
What 
a 
consequence  of  stopping  or 
withdrawing  the  existing  EU 
intervention? 

would 

be 

Sustainability 

To  what  extent  are 
the 
the 
(positive)  effects  of 
intervention likely to last  after 
the intervention has ended? 

To what extent are the long-term effects of the interventions 
sustainable? 

To  what  extent  have  the  interventions  triggered  additional 
initiatives at national level? 

86 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
ANNEX 3 - METHODS AND ANALYTICAL MODELS 

This  annex  provides  a  description  of  the  methodological  approach  to  the  evaluation  by 
summarising the methodological approach of the external evaluation study. 

Sampling methodology 

The external contractor carried out the sampling according to three selection criteria:  

1.  A  balanced  yet  weighted  geographical  sample:  the  geographical  distribution  in  the 
selection of project reports resembles as closely as possible the geographical distribution 
of all finalised projects. Countries with only one or two finalised projects were slightly 
overrepresented,  while  countries  with  more 
than  10  finalised  projects  were 
underrepresented to include at least one project for every beneficiary Member State (see 
Appendix 5 of the study report  –  note that  Austria,  Cyprus, Denmark, Luxembourg 
and the United Kingdom did not run any technical assistance projects between 2014 
and 2020). 

2.  Contractor RAMBOLL  sought  to  factor in the relative weight of technical  assistance 
and  training  projects  run  under  the  Hercule  III  budget  in  its  selection.  For  each 
country,  it  aimed  to  select  more  technical  assistance  projects  than  training  projects. 
Some  outliers  are  countries  such  as  Italy  that  had  an  exceptionally  high  number  of 
training  projects  whereas  other  countries  did  not  run  any  training  projects  during  this 
funding  period.  In  the  final  sample,  training  is  somewhat  overrepresented  (35%  of  the 
reports in the sample vs 25% of the total budget), since in total, the number of training 
projects is relatively high with mostly smaller budgets; 

3.  For  the  final  selection  of  projects,  RAMBOLL  aimed  to  achieve  a  balanced 
distribution over time. This was however difficult to achieve for two reasons. In 2017, 
the reporting requirements for grant beneficiaries changed, and as a result final technical 
and  implementation  reports  are  much  more  comprehensive  for  projects  finalised  after 
2017. For some recently finalised projects, the final technical or implementation reports 
are not yet available. In addition, some projects that were planned to be finished in 2020 
were  extended  due  to  delays  caused  by  the  COVID-19  pandemic.  Therefore,  the  final 
sampling  focused  on  the  data  available  while  still  aiming  to  achieve  a  balanced 
distribution of selected projects. 

The in-depth assessment of achievements went through a selection of 98 projects funded 
over the 2014-2020 period92. In November 2021, OLAF had registered 280 finalised projects 
out  of  336  applications  (83.3%)  under  the  programme,  meaning  that  the  final  technical 
reports had been submitted for these 280 projects.  

92  See  RAMBOLL,  Final  Evaluation  Report  of  the  Hercule  III  programme,  Appendix  5  –  Assessment  of 

Achievements, https://op.europa.eu/s/uVYM. 

87 

 
 
                                                           
Among  the  projects  selected,  60  were  technical  assistance  grants,  35  were  anti-fraud 
training & conferences grants or legal training & studies grants, and 3 were related to 
procured  databases.  Of  the  35  training  grants,  two  legal  training  &  studies  grants  were 
selected  that  have  been  renewed  on  an  annual  basis.  The  same  applies  to  the  3  selected 
projects on procured databases.  

The assessment methodology 

For  each  selected  project,  all  available  reports  were  included  in  the  desk  research.  This 
included the final technical reports, final financial reports, final implementation reports, and 
post-event surveys of projects funded by the programme. The evidence from the reports was 
compiled  by  RAMBOLL,  using  an  Excel  database  to  collect  both  quantitative  and 
qualitative data. 

Information from these reports was used to create a typology of project implementation and 
achievements in the form of a database. This was used to identify the main characteristics of 
the projects based on data from the final technical/implementation reports. The main results 
and  impacts  as  set  out  in  the  final  technical/implementation  reports  were  categorised 
following the evaluation question matrix. 

Where  quantitative  data  were  available,  it  was  added  to  the  database  of  finalised  projects. 
For technical assistance, quantitative data consisted mainly of the number of operations the 
equipment was used in, the number and types of goods seized, and the number of suspects 
identified and detained. For training, quantitative data are firstly the number of participants 
in  events  and the  level of  satisfaction  reported by  participants,  and secondly the  results of 
the post-event surveys.  

Both  the  final  reports  for  training  and  technical  assistance  and  the  implementation  reports 
for  technical  assistance  contain  qualitative  data  too.  Though  the  post-event  survey  reports 
only contain quantitative data, the final technical reports for training and conference grants 
describe the project achievements, which required a qualitative analysis.  

Qualitative  data  were  used  by  categorising  the  results  described  in  the  project  reports  and 
adding  the  categories  to  the  database.  Based  on  the  evidence  provided  in  the  reports,  the 
study  team  judged  the  degree  to  which  the  assistance  proved  effective  in  reaching  its 
objective.  The  robustness  of  these  assessments  was  judged  on  the  basis  of  supporting 
evidence  and/or  examples  provided,  using  a  5-point  scale  (for  details,  see  Table  5.6  in 
Appendix 5 to the study report). 

88 

 
 
ANNEX 4 - LIST OF ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS 

AFT  
AFCOS  
Annual Implementation Report 

Anti-fraud training 
Anti-Fraud Coordination Service 
Commission  staff  working  document,  annual  overview 
with  information  on  the  results  of  the  Hercule  III 
programme, accompanying the document ‘Report from the 
Commission  to  the  European  Parliament  and  the  Council 
on  the  Protection  of  the  European  Union's  financial 
interests  -  Fight  against  Fraud  Annual  Report’  (‘PIF 
report’) 

AMT                                                            Automated Monitoring Tool 
Annual work programme  

Annual work programme (‘AWP’) for the implementation 
of  the  2014-2020  Hercule  III  programme,  established  by 
Regulation  (EU)  No  250/2014,  annex  to  the  Commission 
decision  concerning  the  adoption  of  the  annual  work 
programme  and 
the  Hercule  III 
the  financing  of 
programme 
Advisory  Committee  for  the  Coordination  of  Fraud 
Prevention (French acronym) 

COCOLAF 

 Member State(s) (of the European Union) 

EPPO                                                          The European Public Prosecutor’s Office 
EUIPO                                                        The European Union Intellectual Property Office 
GAF                                                            Groupe Anti-Fraude (European Council Working Party) 
IA 

Impact  assessment  accompanying  the  proposal  for  a 
legislative act, such as a regulation  
 Information technology 
 Inter-service steering group 
 The Commission’s Joint Research Centre 
 Legal training and studies 

IT  
ISG  
JRC  
LTS  
MFF                                                            Multiannual financial framework (EU budget) 
MS  
OECD                                                         Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development 
OLAF  
PIF 
PIF Associations                                         Mainly universities or research institutes working on 
European criminal law and protection of the financial 
interest of the EU (and Hercule III beneficiaries) 
The Commission’s annual report under Article 325 TFEU 
on the protection of the EU’s financial interests 
 The Hercule III programme 
Regulation (EU) No 250/2014 of the European Parliament 
and  of  the  Council  of  26 February  2014  establishing  a 
Programme  to  promote  activities  in  the  field  of  the 
protection of the financial interests of the European Union 
(Hercule  III  Programme)  and  repealing  Decision  No 
804/2004/EC 
 Technical assistance 
Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union 
 Value added tax 

The programme 
The Regulation (basic act) 

 The European Anti-Fraud Office (French acronym) 

  Protection of the financial interests of the EU 

Annual PIF Report (or ‘PIF report’) 

TA  
TFEU 
VAT  

89 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
ANNEX 5 - GLOSSARY 

General objective  

Specific objective  

To protect the EU’s financial interests, thus enhancing the competitiveness of the 
EU’s  economy  and  ensuring  the  protection  of  taxpayers’  money  (Article  3  of 
Regulation (EU) No 250/2014). 

To  prevent  and  combat  fraud,  corruption  and  other  illegal  activities  against  the 
EU’s financial interests, including cigarette smuggling and counterfeiting (Article 
4 of the Hercule Regulation). 

Operational objectives  

1. 

2. 

3. 

4. 

improving  the  prevention  and  investigation  of  fraud  and  other  illegal 
activities  beyond  current 
transnational  and 
multidisciplinary cooperation; 

levels  by  enhancing 

increasing the protection of the financial interests of the EU against fraud by 
facilitating  the  exchange  of  information,  experiences  and  best  practices, 
including staff exchanges; 

strengthening the fight against fraud and other illegal activities by providing 
technical  and  operational  support  to  national  investigation,  and  in  particular 
customs and law enforcement authorities; 

limiting the currently known exposure of the financial interests of the  EU to 
fraud,  corruption  and  other  illegal  activities  with  a  view  to  reducing  the 
development of an illegal economy in key risk areas such as organised fraud, 
including cigarette smuggling and counterfeiting; 

Bodies eligible for 
funding 

5.  enhancing  the  degree  of  development  of  the  specific  legal  and  judicial 
protection  of  the  financial  interests  of  the  EU  against  fraud  by  promoting 
comparative law analysis (Article 5). 

1.  national or regional administrations of a participating country, as referred to 
in Article 7(1) of the Hercule Regulation, which promote the strengthening of 
action at EU level to protect the EU’s financial interests; 

2. 

research  and  educational  institutes  and  non-profit-making  entities  provided 
that they have been established and have been operating for at least one year, 
in  a  participating  country  (Article  7(1)),  and  promote  the  strengthening  of 
action at EU level to protect the financial interests of the EU (Article 6). 

Beneficiaries 

Eligible bodies that have been awarded a grant (in the period: 2014-2020). 

End beneficiaries 

Staff that operates the equipment purchased through a technical assistance grant or 
which is a participant in training activities. 

Unsuccessful applicants 

Entities that applied without success to the Hercule III calls for proposals. 

Participants in events 

Individuals taking part in events (conferences, seminars, training, etc.) funded by 
Hercule III grants (2014-2020). 

Users of services 

Traditional ‘own 
resources’ 

Individuals accessing services purchased under procurement and made available to 
EU,  national  and  regional  institutions.  Users  of  services  comprise  users  of 
statistics  and  IT  tools,  users  of  databases,  and  users  of  services  to  carry  out 
chemical analysis of samples from tobacco and/or cigarette seizures. 

A  small  share  of  tax  revenue  raised  by  Member  States  is  transferred  to  the  EU 
budget,  which  has  three  streams  of  traditional  own  resources:  tariffs  and  duties 
(agricultural tariffs, sugar customs duties, general tariffs), VAT-based income and 
gross national income-based revenue. 

90 

 
ANNEX 6 - EXTERNAL EVALUATION SUPPORT STUDY 

The  external  study  carried  out  by  RAMBOLL  Management  Consulting  is  available 
through 
following 
https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-
/publication/3d9c63bd-4da3-11ec-91ac-01aa75ed71a1  

link: 

the 

91