COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT Early-Detection and Exclusion System (EDES) - Panel referred to in Article 143 of the Financial Regulation Accompanying the document REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE COUNCIL AND THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT 33rd Annual Report on the protection of the European Union's financial interests and the fight against fraud - 2021
Date: 2022-09-23
Institutions: European Anti-Fraud Office
Subjects: EU Member State, EU budget, EU strategy, activity report, coronavirus disease, epidemic, fight against crime, financial control, fraud, fraud against the EU

EN 

  EN 

   EUROPEAN COMMISSION  Brussels, 23.9.2022  SWD(2022) 302 final  COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT Early-Detection and Exclusion System (EDES) - Panel referred to in Article 143 of the Financial Regulation Accompanying the document REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE COUNCIL AND THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT 33rd Annual Report on the protection of the European Union's financial interests and the fight against fraud - 2021 {COM(2022) 482 final} - {SWD(2022) 303 final} - {SWD(2022) 304 final} - {SWD(2022) 305 final} - {SWD(2022) 306 final} - {SWD(2022) 307 final}  
 
 
TABLE OF CONTENTS 

1. 

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

2.  THE PANEL ............................................................................................................... 3 

2.1.  The composition of the Panel ............................................................................ 3 

2.2.  Role of the Panel ............................................................................................... 5 

2.3.  Recommendations of the Panel ......................................................................... 7 

3.  COOPERATION WITH OLAF .................................................................................. 9 

4.  THE FIRST MANDATE OF THE PANEL .............................................................. 10 

5.  ASSESSMENT OF REMEDIAL MEASURES ....................................................... 13 

6.  OVERVIEW OF THE CASES ................................................................................. 13 

7.  SOURCES OF REFERRAL DURING THE PERIOD 2021 - JUNE 2022 .............. 28 

 
 
 
 
 
 
1. 

INTRODUCTION 

EDES stands for the Early-Detection and Exclusion System. It was set up in 2016 by the 
European  Commission  and  rooted  in  the  Financial  Regulation  applicable  to  the  EU 
budget, whose latest revision took place in 2018 (Articles 135 to 145)1.  

EDES is an effective tool for strengthening the protection of the EU’s financial interests 
against unreliable persons and entities and against fraudsters - e.g. the exclusion of such 
persons  and  entities  from  receiving  EU  funds  and/or  European  Development  Funds 
(EDF). In this context, EDES provides for a broad range of prohibited practices that need 
to be sanctioned for the sake of the protection of the EU financial interests.  

The  system  ensures  (i)  the  independent  and  transparent  central  assessment  of 
administrative  sanctions,  and  (ii)  respect  for  the  fundamental  rights  of  the  persons  and 
entities concerned. The Financial Regulation contains rules that centralise the exclusion 
process  for  all  EU  institutions,  agencies,  offices  and  bodies.  In  particular,  Article  143 
provides for an inter-institutional panel (‘the Panel’) presided over by a standing, high-
level, independent chair (‘the Chair’).  

The key responsibility of the Panel is to issue recommendations on which administrative 
sanctions to impose (i.e. sanctions such as exclusion and/or financial penalties and, where 
applicable, the publication of information on these sanctions), following a request from 
an authorising officer by delegation2 of any of the EU institutions, agencies, offices and 
bodies. The Panel addresses these recommendations to the requesting authorising officers 
who remain solely competent to take the decision to exclude persons or entities and/or to 
impose  a  financial  penalty  on  them  and,  where  appropriate,  to  publish  the  relevant 
information  on  these  sanctions.  Finally,  pursuant  to  Article 93  of  the  Financial 
Regulation,  the  Panel  is  also  responsible  for  assessing  cases  of  internal  financial 
irregularities  committed  by  the  EU  staff.  When  dealing  with  such  cases,  the  Panel  is 
composed  of  three  additional  members  (a  representative  of  the  competent  appointing 
authority,  a  member  appointed  by  the  competent  staff  committee  and  a  member  of  the 
legal service of the Union institution or body concerned).   

This Staff Working Document presents the sixth year of activity of the EDES Panel and 
also covers the first half of 2022. 

1  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 of 30.7.2018, p.1. 

2  Authorising officers by delegation generally have the rank of Director-General or Director. They are 
responsible for: (i) implementing revenue and expenditure  in accordance with the principle of sound 
management, including through ensuring reporting on performance; and (ii) ensuring compliance with 
the requirements of legality, regularity and equal treatment of recipients of EU funds. 

2 

 
 
                                                 
2.  THE PANEL 

The  Panel  ensures  the  coherent  operation  of  the  exclusion  system  at  EU  level,  while 
protecting the fundamental rights of the persons and entities concerned, in particular their 
right to be heard. 

2.1.  The composition of the Panel 

As laid down in Article 143 of the Financial Regulation, the Panel includes: 

- 

- 

a standing, high-level, independent Chair; 

two  permanent  members  representing  the  Commission  as  owner  of  the  Early-
Detection and Exclusion system, who express a joint position on each case submitted 
to the Panel and; 

- 

one representative of the requesting authorising officer. 

The  Chair  of  the  Panel  and  his/her  Deputy  are  appointed  by  the  Commission3,  and  are 
independent in performing their duties4. They are chosen from among former members of 
the  Court  of  Auditors,  the  Court  of  Justice  of  the  European  Union,  or  former  officials 
who have held at least the rank of Director-General in an institution of the EU other than 
the Commission. The term of office of the Chair of the Panel and that of his/her Deputy 
is 5 years. During the greater part of the period covered by this report, the Chair was Mr 
Christian Pennera, former Jurisconsult of the European Parliament, and his Deputy was 
Ms Maria Isabel Rofes i Pujol, former Judge of the Civil Service Tribunal at the Court of 
Justice  of  the  European  Union.  Both  Mr  Pennera  and  Ms  Rofes  i  Pujol,  who  had  been 
appointed in 2016, completed in November 20215 their non-renewable mandates as first 
Panel Chair and Deputy Chair respectively. The Commission considers that due to their 
respective  high  level  previous  experience  in  the  service  of  EU  institutions,  their 
outstanding  legal  and  economic  competences  and  untiring  commitment,  they  greatly 
contributed  to  the  development  of  the  new  system,  and  paved  the  way  for  the  further 
improvement of its operation. 

On  17  November  2021,  following  a  call  for  expression  of  interest  and  a  selection 
procedure,  the  Commission  appointed  Ms  Maria  Isabel  Rofes  i  Pujol,  and  Mr  Igors 
Ludboržs, former Member of the European Court of Auditors, as Chair and Deputy Chair 
of  the  Panel  respectively6,  for  a  non-renewable  term  of  office  of  5  years.  The  two 
permanent  Members  of  the  Panel  representing  the  Commission  are  Mr  Hubert 
Szlaszewski,  a  Principal  Adviser  in  the  Secretariat  General  of  the  Commission 

3  The rules applicable to the Deputy Chair are to be found in the Rules of Procedure of the Panel. These 

rules also apply to the Chair. 

4  Article 144(3) of the Financial Regulation. 

5   Their  term  of  office  was  to  end  on  4  July  2021.  However,  for  reasons  of  continuity  of  service,  in 
accordance with the Rules of Procedure of the Panel, they remained in office until the appointment of 
their replacements. 

6      See appointment published in OJ, C 8, 7.1.2022, p. 1. 

3 

 
                                                 
designated ad personam, and  Mr Olivier Waelbroeck, Director of the Central  Financial 
Service in the Directorate-General for Budget7. 

For  each  case,  the  additional  member  representing  the  requesting  authorising  officer  is 
designated according to the rules of procedure and the internal administrative rules of the 
EU institution, agency, office or body concerned. 

The  Panel  may  be  assisted  by  observers,  and  in  all  cases  by  a  representative  of  the 
Commission’s  Legal  Service.  The  observers  do  not  take  part  in  the  adoption  of  the 
recommendations.  When  cases  are  referred  to  the  Panel  on  the  basis  of  a  report  of  the 
European Anti-fraud Office (“OLAF”), OLAF shall designate an observer to participate 
in the Panel meetings. The Panel and OLAF have agreed practical working arrangements 
allowing  the  Panel  to  be  informed  of:  (i)  the  facts  and  findings  resulting  from  OLAF 
investigations;  (ii)  the  estimated  financial  impact  of  these  facts  or  findings;  (iii)  the 
procedural guarantees accorded to the persons and entities concerned; and (iv) the state 
of  exchanges  of  information  between  OLAF  and  the  competent  authorities  of  the 
Member States. The active contribution of the Commission’s Legal Service and of OLAF 
to  the  work  of  the  Panel  is  key  in  providing  the  Panel  with  relevant  information  and 
allowing it to deliver high-quality and timely recommendations. 

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

The  Panel  has  its  own  internal  rules,  which  are  laid  down  by  Commission  Decision 
2018/12208. These rules aim to: (i) govern the way the Panel organises its work; and (ii) 
clarify, for the benefit of all parties involved, including those in a situation of exclusion, 
the applicable procedure. These rules implement and supplement those of Article 143 of 
the Financial Regulation. In 2021, the Commission amended Decision 2018/12209, with 
the purpose of: 

-  defining  the  practical  arrangements  for  close  cooperation  between  the 

Panel and the European Public Prosecutor’s Office (“EPPO”)10; 

-  ensuring  the  continuity  of  the  functioning  of  the  Panel  at  the  end  of  the 
Chair’s term of office and, consequently, the continued protection of the 
Union’s financial interests; and 

-  harmonising  the  designation  of  deputies  to  the  Commission  permanent 

members of the Panel. 

7  Deputies  of  the  Permanent  Members  are,  respectively,  Mr  René  Slootjes,  Head  of  Unit  in  the 
Secretariat-General of the Commission designated  ad personam and Mr Alessandro Nucara, Head of 
Unit in the Central Financial Service in the Directorate-General for Budget. 

8  Commission  Decision  (EU)  2018/1220  of  6  September  2018  on  the  rules  of  procedure  of  the  panel 
referred to in Article 143 of Regulation (EU, Euratom) 2018/1046 of the European Parliament and of 
the Council (OJ L 226, 7.9.2018, p. 7),. 

9      Decision (EU) 2021/1081 of 28 June 2021 (OJ L 234, 2.7.2021, p. 99). 

10    The  Commission  determined 1 June 2021 as the date on  which the  EPPO assumed the investigative 

and prosecutorial tasks conferred on it by Council Regulation (EU) 2017/1939. 

4 

 
 
                                                 
2.2.  Role of the Panel 

Pursuant to the Financial Regulation11, in the absence of a final national judgment – or, 
where  applicable,  in  the  absence  of  a  final  administrative  decision  –  the  authorising 
officer who envisages to exclude and/or impose a financial penalty on unreliable persons 
and entities must first request a recommendation of the Panel. The grounds for exclusion 
that require a Panel recommendation are the following12: 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

grave professional misconduct resulting from: (i) the violation of applicable laws or 
regulations  or  ethical  standards  of  the  profession  to  which  the  person  or  entity 
concerned  belong,  or  (ii)  the  engagement  in  any  wrongful  conduct  which  has  an 
impact  on  professional  credibility  where  such  conduct  denotes  wrongful  intent  or 
gross negligence; 

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

significant  deficiencies  in  complying  with  the  main  obligations  in  performing  a 
contract financed by the budget (‘serious breach of obligations’), which: (i) has led 
to  early  termination  of  the  contract  or  to  the  application  of  liquidated  damages  or 
other  contractual  penalties;  or  (ii)  has  been  discovered  following  checks,  audits  or 
investigations by an authorising officer, OLAF or the Court of Auditors; 

irregularity within the meaning of Article 1(2) of Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) 
No 2988/9513 and; 

being a shell company or creating a shell company in a different jurisdiction with the 
intent to circumvent fiscal, social or any other legal obligations in the jurisdiction of 
its registered office, central administration or principal place of business. 

In general, each case is examined by the Panel in two phases. In the first phase, the Panel 
examines the facts and findings and performs a preliminary qualification in law of these 
facts. The Panel ensures the right to be heard by sending a letter to the entity or person 
concerned, in which the entity or person concerned receives all the required information 
and is given the possibility of submitting observations in writing. In the second phase, the 
Panel  examines 
to  adopt  a 
recommendation,  which  is  addressed  to  the  requesting  authorising  officer.  During  the 
COVID-19  pandemic,  the  Panel  proceedings  mostly  took  place  remotely14  and  through 
written procedures in 2020 and 2021. In carrying out its work in this way, the Panel has 
taken particular  care to  comply  with  its obligations,  in  particular  to  uphold  the right  of 

the  received  written  observations  and  proceeds 

11  See Article 136 of the Financial Regulation. 

12  See Article 136(2) of the Financial Regulation. 

13  Council  Regulation  (EC,  Euratom)  No  2988/95  of  18  December  1995  on  the  protection  of  the 
European Communities financial interests (OJ L 312,  23.12.1995, p. 1) which defines irregularity as: 
‘any infringement of a provision of Community law resulting from an act or omission by an economic 
operator, which has, or would have, the effect of prejudicing the general budget of the Communities or 
budgets managed by them, either by reducing or losing revenue accruing from own resources collected 
directly on behalf of the Communities, or by an unjustified item of expenditure.’ 

14     By videoconference. 

5 

 
                                                 
defence  of  the  persons  and  entities  concerned  and  to  ensure  the  confidentiality  and 
objectivity of the Panel’s deliberations. Though the pandemic restrictions do not require 
it anymore, the Panel has continued to work remotely most of the time, since this way of 
working has proved to be efficient and satisfactory. 

three  months 

As  a  general  rule,  the  Panel  must  complete  the  adversarial  procedure  and  adopt  its 
recommendation  within 
case. 
The  person  or  entity  concerned  is  granted  three  weeks  to  submit  observations.  In 
exceptional  cases,  following  a  reasoned  request  by  the  person  or  entity  concerned,  the 
deadline may be extended by no more than half the period initially granted. In practice, 
the  Panel  takes  particular  care  to  ensure  observance  of  the  right  to  be  heard.  This  also 
allows  the  Panel  to  adopt  fully  informed  recommendations  and  to  strike  a  balance 
between aggravating and mitigating circumstances. 

opening 

the 

the 

of 

of 

Nevertheless, without prejudice to the right of defence of the person or entity concerned, 
the Panel strives to act swiftly where the nature or the circumstances of the case require it 
to be dealt with urgency (e.g. business continuity, pending procurement procedures). 

Prior to adopting a recommendation, the Panel performs an assessment of  the facts and 
findings  established  against  the  person  or  entity.  It  is  important  to  recall  that  the  Panel 
has no investigative powers. It therefore relies, inter alia, on: 

a) 

facts  established  through  audits  or  investigations  carried  out  by:  (i)  EPPO;  (ii)  the 
European Court of Auditors; (iii) OLAF; (iv) internal audits; or (v) any other checks, 
audits or controls performed under the responsibility of the authorising officer; 

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

c) 

d) 

facts  referred to  in  decisions  of persons and entities implementing  EU funds under 
indirect management15; 

information sent by entities implementing EU funds under shared management with 
Member States; and 

e)  decisions of: (i) the Commission on the infringement of the EU’s competition rules; 
or  (ii)  a  national  competent  authority  on  the  infringement  of  EU  or  national 
competition law. 

Where the Panel considers that the person or entity concerned should be excluded and/or 
that  a  financial  penalty  should  be  imposed  on  that  person  or  entity,  the  Panel’s 
recommendation  contains  the  preliminary  classification  in  law  of  the  misconduct, 
including  a  legal  assessment  of  the  administrative  sanction  proposed  in  relation  to  the 
respect of the proportionality principle16. More specifically, the Panel’s recommendation 
may include one or several of the following assessments: 

15  For  example,  by:  the  European  Central  Bank;  the  European  Investment  Bank;  the  European 
Investment  Fund;  international  organisations;  non-EU  countries  or  the  bodies  designated  by  non-EU 
countries; and Member State administrations. 

16    Article 136(3) of the Financial Regulation. 

6 

 
                                                 
a) 

the analysis of the misconduct in light of the established facts and findings; 

b) 

the presence of any aggravating and/or mitigating circumstances; 

c) 

d) 

e) 

f) 

the  need  to  exclude  the  person  or  entity  concerned  and,  in  that  case,  the 
recommended duration of such an exclusion; 

the need to publish the information related to the person or entity concerned that is 
excluded and/or subject to a financial penalty; 

the  possibility  of  imposing  –  and  the  need  to  impose  –  a  financial  penalty  and  the 
amount of this penalty and; 

the  remedial  measures  taken  by  the  person  or  entity  (except  for  cases  of  fraud, 
corruption, criminal organisations, money laundering, terrorist financing or offences, 
child labour, or other offences concerning trafficking in human beings). 

When  remedial  measures  have  been  taken  by  the  person  or  entity  so  as  to  address  the 
negative consequences of the misconduct, the Panel may decide to recommend imposing 
no sanctions.  This is  in line with  Articles  136(6)(a) and Article 136(7) of the Financial 
Regulation, which mirror Article 57(6) of the Public Procurement Directive17, and makes 
possible  for  the  person  or  entity  concerned  to  avoid  the  exclusion  altogether,  where 
remedial measures adopted are sufficient to demonstrate its reliability. In addition, for the 
less serious cases of exclusion, excluded persons or entities can take remedial measures 
after being sanctioned. In such cases, the competent authorising officer shall ex officio – 
or on request from that person or entity – refer a case to the Panel. The Panel can then 
revise  its  former  recommendation,  if  it  concludes  that  the  newly  submitted  elements 
reliably demonstrate that the reasons for the original exclusion situation no longer exist. 
In such cases, the burden of proof is reversed, and the person or entity concerned  must 
demonstrate  to  the  Panel  that:  (i)  the  measures  taken  are  sufficient  to  ensure  the 
recovered reliability of that person or entity; and (ii) the grounds for exclusion no longer 
apply. 

2.3.  Recommendations of the Panel 

In  the  light  of  the  principle  of  proportionality18,  and  taking  into  account  the  remedial 
measures – if any – taken by the person or entity concerned19, the Panel can recommend 
the following administrative sanctions: 

- 

the exclusion of the person or entity concerned for a maximum of 3 years or 5 years 
in the case of the most serious misconducts20, from participating in award procedures 
funded under the EU budget and/or EDF; 

17  Directive 2014/24/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 2014 on public 
procurement  and  repealing  Directive  2004/18/EC  (OJ  L  94,  28.3.2014,  p.  65)  and  Directive 
2014/23/EU  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  26  February  2014  on  the  award  of 
concession contracts (OJ L 94, 28.3.2014, p. 1). 

18  This principle is enshrined in Articles 49 and 52 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European 

Union and recalled in the Financial Regulation. 

19  Where remedial measures demonstrate the recovered reliability of the economic operator, no sanctions 

can be imposed on it. 

7 

 
                                                 
- 

the imposition of a financial penalty which shall not exceed 10% of the total value of 
the legal commitment21. This penalty can be issued: 

(i) 

(ii) 

either as an alternative to a decision to exclude the person or entity, where such 
an exclusion would be disproportionate; or 

in  addition  to  an  exclusion  which  is  necessary  to  protect  the  EU’s  financial 
interests,  where  the  person  or  entity  has  adopted  systemic  and  recurrent 
conduct with the intention of unduly obtaining EU funds22. 

- 

the  publication  of  the  exclusion  and/or  financial  penalty  on  the  Commission’s 
website to strengthen the deterrent effect of the sanction23. 

Without  prejudice  to  the  administrative  autonomy  of  the  EU  institutions  and  other  EU 
bodies, the recommendations of the Panel are appreciated and considered very seriously 
by  the  authorising  officers.  These  recommendations  carry  a  significant  weight  also  in 
light  of  its  composition  and  the  recognised  authority  of  its  standing,  high-level, 
independent  Chair.  The  authorising  officer  decides  freely  about  following  or  not  the 
recommendation. In the latter case, the authorising officer must simply inform the Panel, 
explaining the reasons for not following the recommendation.  In this regard, it is noted 
that  since  the  introduction  of  EDES  in  2016,  the  Panel  recommendations  have  always 
been  followed  by  the  authorising  officers  of  all  the  Union  institutions  and  bodies 
concerned.  

2.4 The publication of sanctions imposed on persons and entities 

The  publication  of  the  administrative  sanctions  is  a  powerful  tool  to  ensure  a  deterrent 
effect and to prevent misuse of EU funds. Currently, there are six decisions of exclusion 
published on the Europa website: EDES database |European Commission (europa.eu). 

There  are  two  reasons  why  only  a  limited  number  of  sanctions  can  be  found  on  the 
website of the Commission. 

First,  the  publication  can  only  occur  three  months  after  the  decision  of  the  authorising 
officer24 and is often deferred when a case is filed before the Court of Justice to have the 

20      Exclusions  situations  listed  under  Article  136(1)(d):  fraud,  corruption,  conduct  related  to  a  criminal 
organization, money laundering or terrorist financing, terrorist offences or offences linked to terrorist 
activities, child labour or trafficking of human beings. 

21  Article 138 of the Financial Regulation. 

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

complying with the main obligations of a contract. 

23 

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

24  Article 140(1), subparagraph 3 of the Financial Regulation. 

8 

 
                                                                                                                                                 
decision  annulled.  In  such  instances25,  the  publication  can  occur  only  after  a  judgment 
confirming the decision has been delivered. This means running the risks that the period 
of exclusion (and the timeframe for the publication) has already elapsed by the time the 
Court of Justice passes judgment26. 

Second, the timeframe for the publication of the sanction is strictly limited to the duration 
of the exclusion. This is why, even if new entities are included over time, other entries 
are removed as soon as the exclusion period is over. 

3.  COOPERATION WITH OLAF 

The  use  of  information  from  OLAF  investigations  and  reports  is  key  to  the  exclusion 
system and to an effective protection of the EU’s financial interests. 

In  the  light  of  the  OLAF  Regulation27,  the  Financial  Regulation  and  the  Rules  of 
Procedure of the Panel, the responsible authorising officers follow up on OLAF reports, 
recommendations  on  actions  to  be  taken,  and  other  information  stemming  from  –  or 
relating to – OLAF investigations. They will then use these reports and other information 
in the context of EDES procedures. 

The facts and findings established in an OLAF report cannot be disclosed if this threatens 
the  confidentiality  of:  (i)  the  investigations  conducted  or  coordinated  by  OLAF, 
including  the  protection  of  whistle-blowers;  (ii)  national  investigations  or  judicial 
proceedings;  or  (iii)  investigations  carried  out  by  EPPO.  This  is  why  the  information 
communicated  to  the  person  or  entity  concerned  during  the  adversarial  procedure  must 
often  be  redacted  before  it  is  submitted  to  the  Panel.  In  each  case,  the  expunction  is 
strictly limited to those parts of the report that might affect the right of defence28 and the 
principle of ‘equality of arms’.  

In  compliance  with  the  right  of  defence  and  the  principle  of  ‘equality  of  arms’,  only 
documents that the person or entity concerned has been able to examine can be taken into 
account by: (i) the Panel in its recommendation on administrative sanctions; and (ii) the 
competent authorising officer when adopting the subsequent decision. The respect of the 
right to be heard, which is a key component of the right of defence and is enshrined in 
Article 41, paragraph 2, of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union as 
part  of  the  right  to  good  administration,  is  ensured  by  Article  13  of  the  Rules  of 
Procedure of the Panel. 

25  This  depends  on  the  legislation  applicable  at  the  time  the  misconduct  occurred.  For  facts  that  took 
place from 2016 onwards, publication occurs three months after its notification to the person or entity 
concerned,  notwithstanding  the  lodging  of  an  action  contesting  the  decision.  This  means  that  the 
deferral of the publication of information on sanctions imposed should gradually disappear over time. 

26    This legal anomaly is likely to disappear over time, once most situations of exclusion will have arisen 
at  a  time  where  the  applicable  substantive  rules  will  be  those  of  the  most  recent  versions  of  the 
Financial Regulation. 

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

28    The right to be heard, which is a key component of the right of defence, is also enshrined in Article 13 

of the Rules of Procedure of the Panel. 

9 

 
                                                 
This  rule  applies  mutatis  mutandis  to  information  stemming  from  the  European  Public 
Prosecutor’s  Office  after  it  started  to  assume  the  investigative  and  prosecutorial  tasks 
conferred upon it. The same principle also applies to all documents used by the Panel, in 
particular audit reports. 

4.  THE FIRST MANDATE OF THE PANEL  

The Chair and the Deputy Chair of the Panel are appointed for a non-renewable term of 
five  years29.  The  Panel  began  operations  in  2016,  after  the  2015  amendment  to  the 
Financial Regulation that set it up. Since 2016, 62 recommendations to exclude or not to 
exclude  were  issued  by  the  Panel30,  and  40  entities  were  excluded  from  EU  financing 
following those recommendations and ensuing decisions. Out of those cases, 11 are still 
open (exclusion ongoing), while the period of exclusion of the others has elapsed. 

Overall, the composition of – and the mission conferred to – the Panel by the Financial 
Regulation  have  proven  appropriate  and  effective.  In  particular,  the  Panel’s  balanced 
composition is ensured by the high-level independent chair, and the other two permanent 
members  representing  jointly  the  Commission  as  owner  of  the  EDES  system. 
Additionally,  in  each  case,  a  different  member  with  specific  subject  knowledge 
represents  the  referring  authorising  officer.  This  mixed  and  balanced  nature  of  the 
composition of the Panel, and the procedural guarantees which govern its operation, have 
been  essential  to  the  workings  of  the  Panel.  They  have  ensured  a  thorough  and  fair 
assessment  of  both:  (i)  the  facts  and  findings  referred  to  it;  and  (ii)  the  preliminary 
classification in law of these facts and findings31. 

Like any newly established body, the Panel has had to face several challenges throughout 
its term. In particular, this was because of: 

- 

- 

- 

- 

the Panel’s very specific features, previously unknown in EU administrative law; 

the novel, complex and varying nature of the conducts referred to the Panel and the 
context in which these conducts took place; 

the need to interpret correctly and apply ratione temporis the wide and dense set of 
rules on exclusion listed in the several versions of the Financial Regulation; 

the  number  of  other  legal  rules  and  general  principles  of  law  to  be  taken  into 
account,  which  lie  at  the  intersection  of  EU  administrative  and  financial  law, 
business law, contractual law, and criminal law; 

29  The rules applicable to the appointment, termination of appointment, and dismissal of the Chair also 

apply to his/her deputy. 

30 

In a number of cases, instead of making recommendations, the Panel replied to requests of authorising 
officers. This was particularly the case where the Panel considered, following the examination of the 
file  and  before  any  adversarial  proceedings  had  taken  place  that  the  adoption  of  administrative 
sanctions could not be recommended. 

31  The legal classification is preliminary in the sense that, except for serious contractual breaches, it does 
not prejudge the content of the final decision of the  final judgement to be adopted by the competent 
authorities. 

10 

 
                                                 
- 

- 

the  need  to  gain  thorough  knowledge  of  various  EU  policies  and  the  way  they  are 
funded under direct and indirect management rules; 

the fact that the Panel could not base its recommendations on precedents32. However, 
the absence of case-law  and of past  references have enabled the Panel  to draw out 
strong principles,  which  pave the way for  the coherent  and effective application of 
the system of administrative sanctions against unreliable persons and entities. 

By way of example, it is worth mentioning some of the salient issues dealt with by the 
Panel since it started its operation in 2016. 

Firstly, in accordance with the principle of legality on substance, the Panel has to apply 
the version(s) of the Financial Regulation in force at the time of the facts. In this regard, 
the  Panel  has  attached  great  importance  to  upholding  Article  49  of  the  Charter  of 
Fundamental Rights, according to which the more lenient rule must apply. This has led 
the Panel to find that some situations – as regrettable as they may have been - could not 
legally  be  sanctioned.  For  example,  misconduct  committed  in  the  context  of  indirect 
management could not be sanctioned for facts that occurred before 2016. Similarly, fraud 
and corruption could not be sanctioned on the basis of a recommendation by the Panel for 
facts that occurred before 2016. Similarly, where facts occur over a number of years, the 
Panel needs to assess these facts in the light of different provisions throughout different 
versions of the Financial Regulation. 

Secondly, the Panel has frequently faced questions about the reliability of the sources of 
information supporting the establishment of the facts and findings to which it has to give 
a  preliminary  classification  in  law.  Since  the  Panel  has  no  investigative  powers,  it  has 
attached  a  great  importance  to  the  adversarial  procedure  followed  with  the  entities 
concerned. In particular, the Panel has ensured in each case that the entity’s right to be 
heard is fully upheld. 

Thirdly, and as already stated in the previous reports, in a number of cases, the Panel has 
not  been  able  to  recommend  that  a  sanction  be  imposed  because  the  person  or  entity 
intentionally  avoided  to  acknowledge  receipt  of  the  notification  of  the  letter  in  the 
context of the adversarial procedure. In line with the case-law of the Court of Justice of 
the European Union33, the Panel has to verify in each case whether the person or entity 
concerned  acknowledged receipt of  the  communication made to  them  through different 
means  (e.g.  electronic  mail,  regular  post  or  courier  service).  This  has  been  especially 
challenging  during  the  COVID-19  crisis,  when  communications  to  official  addresses 
were  disrupted.  It  should  be  noted  that  this  issue  is  currently  being  addressed  by  the 
Commission in the context of its ongoing proposal to revise the Financial Regulation.34 

This  is  only  a  limited  snapshot  of  the  kind  of  issues  the  Panel  faces.  Overall,  between 
2016 and 2021, the impact of the system of administrative sanctions on the protection of 
the EU’s financial interests has been very positive. The central and coherent assessment 

32  The domain of administrative sanctions was widely uncharted before 2016, since by then only a few 
authorising officers had taken administrative sanctions. These sanctions were isolated and taken by the 
authorising officers on their own accord. 

33  Case T‑280/17, GE.CO. P. Generale Costruzioni e Progettazioni SpA, v. European Commission (§62-

63).  

34   COM(2022)223 of 16 May 2022. 

11 

 
                                                 
of exclusion situations through recommendations of the Panel has contributed to a higher 
level of protection. This higher level of protection can be seen in both a corrective side 
(exclusions) and a preventive side (publication of exclusions, which has a deterrent effect 
now that the system is better known by entities managing EU funds). The soundness of 
the  exclusion  system,  as  acknowledged  by  the  Court  of  Justice35,  is  based  on:  (i)  the 
quality of recommendations issued; and  (ii) the increasing number of  cases  referred by 
authorising officers, (this increasing number is partly due to awareness-raising activities 
carried out to increase the system’s visibility). 

On the spending areas most covered through cases submitted to the Panel in recent years, 
the Panel has dealt with cases involving the most relevant programmes under direct and 
indirect management: 

  Horizon 2020 and its previous versions (FP7 and FP6 namely); 

  SESAR  2020  (Single  European  Sky  ATM  Research)  Research  and  Innovation 

(R&I); 

 

 the European Instrument for Democracy and Human Rights; 

 

the Marco Polo programme or SME support actions; 

  programmes funded under the European Development Funds (EDF)36; 

  other programmes implemented by non-EU organisations concerning enlargement 
and  neighbourhood  policies  (e.g.  ENLARG,  the  European  Neighbourhood  and 
Partnership Instrument or the Instrument for Pre-accession).  

Contracts  managed  directly  by  EU  institutions  (in  areas  like  security,  IT  programmes, 
audit, communication activities, or technical support to Member States) have also been at 
the centre of  exclusion procedures. However, it should be stressed that:  (i) the grounds 
for  exclusion  in  these  cases  are  not  exclusively  related  to  the  implementation  of  EU 
funds; and (ii) the potential impact on the budget is significant because these unreliable 
entities  would  implement  EU  funds  if  they  were  not  excluded.  This  is  the  case,  for 
example,  of  entities  sanctioned  at  national  level  for  breaching  competition  rules,  and 
where EU funds are not always at play but could otherwise be if the entities were allowed 
to participate in EU-funded award procedures and succeeded in being granted a contract. 

Amongst  the  various  sources  of  information  at  the  origin  of  Panel  cases,  OLAF 
investigations have already been discussed37. However, it is  important  to  also  highlight 
the  work  carried  out  by  the  various  authorising  officers  in  detecting  misconducts.  This 
element  is  essential  for  the  work  of  the  Panel  and  the  adoption  of  the  relevant 
recommendations. The greatest part of the cases referred to the Panel stemmed from an 
OLAF investigation launched as a follow-up to a notification of the authorising officer, 

35   Case T-290/18, Agmin Italy v. European Commission. 

36      Where  legally  possible,  the  recommendations  of  exclusion  from  the  EU  award  procedures  extend  to 
EDF  procedures.  Conversely,  recommendations  on  exclusion  from  EDF  award  procedures  cannot 
generally  be  extended  for  legal  reasons  attached  to  the  design  of  the  EDF  rules,  to  the  EU  award 
procedures. 

37    Half of the cases (54) were referred following an OLAF investigation. 

12 

 
                                                 
or from  an audit carried out  at  the request  of –  or directly  by  –  the authorising officer. 
Ultimately,  the  checks  performed  by  the  authorising  officer  in  the  context  of  the 
implementation  of  a  legal  commitment  or  during  the  award  procedure  proves  to  be  of 
essence in order to identify possible exclusion cases.  

5.  ASSESSMENT OF REMEDIAL MEASURES 

According  to  the  Financial  Regulation38,  a  person  or  entity  should  not  be  subject  to  a 
decision  on  exclusion  when  it  has  taken  remedial  measures,  thus  demonstrating  its 
reliability.  That  possibility  should  not  apply  in  cases  of  the  most  severe  criminal 
activities.  Therefore,  the  Panel  is  also  called  to  perform  an  assessment  of  remedial 
measures where adopted by the person or entity, prior to issuing its recommendation.  

Article  136(7)  of  the  Financial  Regulation  presents  a  non-exhaustive  list  of  possible 
remedial  measures  that  the  person  or  entity  can  adopt.  However,  the  assessment  as  to 
whether  the  person  or  entity  concerned  has  taken  remedial  measures  ‘to  an  extent  that 
[are] sufficient to demonstrate its reliability’ is left to the discretion of the Panel (and/or 
the authorizing officer)39. 

In 2021, the Panel received one case with a request by the referring authorising officer to 
assess  the  remedial  measures  adopted  by  an  economic  operator.  On  that  occasion,  the 
Panel  clarified  again  that  the  remedial  measures  submitted  to  its  assessment  must  be 
unequivocally  incorporated  in  the  corporate  culture  and  daily  operation  of  the  entity 
concerned and this must be borne out with enough evidence. 

to  rule  out 

the  exclusion  of 

The  remedial  measures  may  be  submitted  by  the  person  or  entity  during  the  exclusion 
procedure or after an exclusion decision has been adopted. If those measures are deemed 
sufficient  by  the  Panel  to  address  the  misconduct  and  prevent  its  recurrence,  they  are 
the  entity  altogether40.  In  such  case,the 
likely 
recommendation  of  the  Panel  will  state  the  detailed  reasons  for  its  assessment41.  The 
Panel may also consider that excluding an entity may be disproportionate partly because: 
(i) the entity has adopted remedial measures that, even if not fully implemented, go to a 
sufficient degree in the right direction to restore the reliability of the company; and (ii) 
there  is  strong  evidence  that  the  entity  was  substantially  improving  its  corporate 
governance and therefore the likelihood of recurrence of the misconduct is low. 

In  harmonising  administrative  sanctions  against  unreliable  entities,  the  Panel  plays  an 
important  role  ensuring  that  businesses  that  aim  at  participating  in  award  procedures 
governed by the Financial Regulation or from being selected for implementing European 
Union funds, are sound from a professional and ethical perspective. 

6.  OVERVIEW OF THE CASES 

In 2021, the Panel received 19 referrals by the relevant authorising officers.  

38  Articles 136(8) and 143(7) of the Financial Regulation. 

39  Article 136(6) of the Financial Regulation. 

40    Article 136(6)(a) of the Financial Regulation.  

41    Article 143(6)(e) of the Financial Regulation.  

13 

 
 
                                                 
Throughout the reporting period42, the Panel issued 12 recommendations, one concerning 
the  assessment  of  remedial  measures  submitted  by  an  entity  already  excluded.  In  such 
case,  the  Panel  considered  that  the  measures  were  not  yet  sufficient  to  lift  the  sanction 
and, thus, did not revise the recommendation of exclusion.  

In three cases, the Panel recommended the  exclusion of  the entity  concerned. This  was 
based  on  various  legal  grounds,  including,  grave  professional  misconduct,  significant 
breaches  in  complying  with  the  main  obligations  in  implementing  a  contract  and 
misrepresentation of information. In addition, the Panel recommended that the sanctions 
be published. The publication was justified by: (i) the inherent gravity of the violations; 
and (ii) the high impact of the violations on the EU’s financial interests and/or image. 

In two cases, the Panel recommended not to exclude the entities concerned, respectively, 
for reasons of proportionality and lack of sufficient evidence. 

In six cases, the Panel did not adopt  a recommendation, mostly because the cases were 
definitively or temporarily inadmissible for various legal reasons. 

In two cases, the requesting authorising officers withdrew the referral.  

Where  the  Panel  recommended  to  exclude  the  entity  concerned,  an  exclusion  decision 
adopted by the authorising officer by delegation has followed.  

The following table presents an overview of the above-mentioned cases where the Panel 
issued a recommendation in 2021 and in the first half of 2022. It contains a summary of: 
(i) facts and findings; (ii) where applicable, the preliminary qualification in law of these 
facts  and  findings;  (iii)  the  recommended  administrative  sanction  and  the  date  of  this 
sanction; and (iv) information on whether publication on the website of the Commission 
was recommended. The cases have been anonymised. 

Full  judicial  review  at  EU  level:  decisions  taken  by  the  EU  institution/agency/body  on 
the  basis  of  the  Panel  recommendation  may  be  contested  before  the  EU  Court  of 
Justice43.

42    Annex I to this document presents the cases treated in the sixth year of activity of the Panel (2021) and 

also covers the first half of 2022. 

43    For what concerns the present reporting period, only two decisions of exclusion were contested before 

the EU Court of Justice, i.e. 2020/03 (case T-175-21) and 2021/01 (case T-614/21). 

14 

 
                                                 
Case 
number 

2019/21 

2019/22/PIF 

2019/23/PIF 

2020/02 

SWD REPORT ACTIVITY 2021 

Annex 1 - Summary of anonymised cases referred to the Panel under Article 143 of the Financial Regulation44 

Facts and findings 

Classification in law 
(exclusion grounds) 

Date of the Panel 
recommendation 

Recommended 
Sanctions 

Recommended 
Publication 

Non-contribution to the project 
implementation without returning the 
received pre-financing.  

Supplying of critical information on EU 
programmes and/or in an attempt to 
influence an act or a decision. 
Involvement in financial management and 
control of transactions. 

Gross violation of several contractual 
provisions, including on social security 
obligations and correct performance of the 
tasks; misrepresentation of information; 
breach of conflict of interest provisions; 
unethical behaviour.  

Serious breach of contractual 
obligations 

28/01/2022 

Member of staff, financial 
irregularity 

01/07/2021 

Not to exclude – limitation 
period for excluding 
and/or imposing a 
financial penalty elapsed.  
Financial irregularity 
committed. 

Not applicable 

Not applicable 

Not applicable 

Member of staff, financial 
irregularity 

02/07/2022 

No financial irregularity 
committed. 

Not applicable 

15/07/2021 

Serious breach of contractual 
obligations. Grave 
professional misconduct 

02/07/2021 

Exclusion for a 3 years 
period, registration as 
person of interest. 

Yes 

01/09/2021 

Date of 
decision of the 
Authorising 
Officer 
Not applicable 

44  Only finalised cases are included. 

 
 
                                                 
SWD REPORT ACTIVITY 2021 

Case 
number 

2020/03 

Facts and findings 

Classification in law 
(exclusion grounds) 

Date of the Panel 
recommendation 

Recommended 
Sanctions 

Recommended 
Publication 

Businesspersons colluding with EU staff to 
obtain confidential tender information and 
use it to gain competitive advantage for 
companies as well as inappropriate hiring 
of experts during the implementation of 
projects. 

Grave professional 
misconduct 

11/01/2021 

Exclusion for an 18 
months period. 

Yes 

Date of 
decision of the 
Authorising 
Officer 
22/02/2021 

2020/03/R 

Revision of the recommendation. 

2020/04 

2020/05 

2020/06 

Obtaining confidential information and 
getting awarded EU funded contracts with 
the ultimate result of distorting competition. 
Not disclosing information of close 
business and/or personal relationships with 
members of the evaluation committee. 

Illegally hiring civil servants/members of 
the administration for the implementation 
of the project. 

Indications of illicit access to the Terms of 
Reference, through a company contracted 
by 2020/06, conferring upon 2020/06 an 
undue advantage in the procurement 
procedure. 

Assessment of the 
sufficiency of the remedial 
measures taken 
Grave professional 
misconduct 

29/10/2021 

11/02/2021 

No need to revise the 
recommendation. 

Not to exclude – absence 
of established facts. 

Not applicable 

Not applicable 

Not applicable 

Not applicable 

Grave professional 
misconduct 

None: Panel reply sent 
on 12/02/2022 

Grave professional 
misconduct Ibid. 

None: Panel reply sent 
on 18/05/2021 

Not applicable 

Not applicable 

Not applicable 

Not applicable 

Not applicable – case 
closed because of the lack 
of sufficient evidence.  

Not applicable - case 
closed because of the 
limitation period for 
excluding and/or imposing 
financial penalties has 
elapsed.  

16 

 
 
SWD REPORT ACTIVITY 2021 

Facts and findings 

Classification in law 
(exclusion grounds) 

Date of the Panel 
recommendation 

Recommended 
Sanctions 

Recommended 
Publication 

Date of 
decision of the 
Authorising 
Officer 
Not applicable 

Case 
number 

2020/07 

2020/08 

2020/10 

A family link and shared professional 
interests existed between the companies 
2020/07 and 2020/08 during a procurement 
procedure launched by an EU Delegation. 
An illegal alliance was formed between the 
two entities with the aim of distorting the 
competition. 

A family link and shared professional 
interests existed between the companies 
2020/07 and 2020/08 during a procurement 
procedure launched by an EU Delegation. 
An illegal alliance was formed between the 
two entities with the aim of distorting the 
competition. 

Serious breach of contractual obligations 
consisting in conflict of interest and biased 
procurement, overcharging of personnel 
costs, undue profit margins as a result of 
sales commissions and intentional 
overcharging of equipment price in the 
CNECT/CIP projects. 
False declarations / misrepresentation of 
information by the beneficiary in its grant 
applications. 

Grave professional 
misconduct 

None: Panel reply sent 
on 07/04/2021 

Not applicable 

Not applicable - case 
closed because of absence 
of established facts and 
lack of sufficient 
evidences. 

Grave professional 
misconduct 

None: Panel reply sent 
on07/04/2021 

Not applicable 

Not applicable 

Not applicable- case 
closed because of absence 
of established facts and 
lack of sufficient 
evidences. 

Serious breach of contract 
False declarations 
Misrepresentation of 
information. 

02/07/2021 

Exclusion for a 3 years 
period, registration as 
person of interest. 

Yes 

06/09/2021 

17 

 
SWD REPORT ACTIVITY 2021 

Case 
number 

2020/11 

2020/12 

Facts and findings 

Classification in law 
(exclusion grounds) 

Date of the Panel 
recommendation 

Recommended 
Sanctions 

Recommended 
Publication 

The owner and legal representative was 
sentenced by the Supreme Court, with a 3-
year deferral to: (i) 1 year prison, (ii) a 
pecuniary fine of 1.000 € and (iii) the 
prohibition for a period of 5 years to 
become administrator/ manager/director of 
companies either directly or through third 
parties. 
Moreover, the Court of Appeal ruled to 
confiscate an amount of 123.541 EUR 

Grave professional 
misconduct. 
Fraud, corruption, criminal 
activities. 
Serious breach of contract. 
Irregularities. 
Creation of shell companies. 
Shell companies. 

None: Panel reply sent: 
07/04/2021 

Not applicable 

Not applicable- the case 
was closed since 
excluding and/or imposing 
financial penalties would 
have been 
disproportionate. 

Date of 
decision of the 
Authorising 
Officer 
Not applicable 

Overcharging of the staff costs and 
ineligible subcontracting of the work in 
relation to the two EASME contracts. 
Misappropriation of funds, obstruction of 
OLAF investigation, submitting false 
documents in order to obtain grants and 
misappropriate EU funds in relation to the 
other projects. 

Serious breach of contractual 
obligations 

14/02/2022 

Not applicable 

Not applicable 

Not to exclude - the 
limitation period for 
excluding and/or imposing 
financial penalties has 
elapsed. 

18 

 
Case 
number 

2020/13 

SWD REPORT ACTIVITY 2021 

Facts and findings 

Classification in law 
(exclusion grounds) 

Date of the Panel 
recommendation 

Recommended 
Sanctions 

Recommended 
Publication 

Grave professional 
misconduct 

02/07/2021 

Not to exclude - sufficient 
remedial measures and the 
existence of mitigating 
circumstances. 

Not applicable 

The entity was sanctioned by a Member 
State competition authority on grounds of 
violation of competition rules. The 
competition authority found that the entity 
had entered into agreements with other 
entities with the aim of distorting 
competition in the framework of several 
public procurement procedures, for several 
years. According to the competition 
authority, the entity played a role of 
instigator of the infringements and it 
participated actively in conducts related to 
all calls for tenders that were investigated at 
national level. 

Date of 
decision of the 
Authorising 
Officer 
Not applicable 

2020/14 

Anticompetitive behaviour in the IT sector.  Grave professional 

misconduct 

2020/15/PIF 

2020/16 

Financial irregularities in service 
procurement contracts in his capacity as the 
Head of the Cooperation section at the EU 
Office 

Double-funding of projects, reached by 
concealing information and denying the 
similarity of projects for a period of over 
three years. Denying knowledge of the loss 
of an essential IP asset. 

Financial irregularities  

None: case withdrawn 
by the Authorising 
officer  

None: case withdrawn 
by the Authorising 
officer. 

Not applicable 

Not applicable 

Not applicable 

Not applicable  

Not applicable 

Not applicable 

Serious breach of contractual 
obligations 

28/04/2022 

Not to exclude– the entity 
has adopted measures 
sufficient to demonstrate 
its reliability. 

Not applicable  

Not applicable  

19 

 
SWD REPORT ACTIVITY 2021 

Case 
number 

2020/17 

Facts and findings 

Classification in law 
(exclusion grounds) 

Date of the Panel 
recommendation 

Recommended 
Sanctions 

Recommended 
Publication 

Intentionally used and presented fraudulent 
invoices for the provision of travel and 
accommodation services organised in two 
Member States. 

23/02/2022 

Grave professional 
misconduct. 
Fraud, corruption, criminal 
activities. 
Serious breach of contract. 
Irregularities. 
Creation of shell companies. 
Shell companies. 

Not to exclude – the 
degree of negligence does 
not meet the minimum 
legal requirements for 
being classified as a 
misconduct in accordance 
with the applicable 
financial rules. 

Not applicable 

Date of 
decision of the 
Authorising 
Officer 
Not applicable 

2020/18 

2020/18 produced fraudulent invoices for 
the provision of travel and accommodation 
services organised in two Member States. 

Grave professional 
misconduct. 
Fraud, corruption, criminal 
activities. 
Serious breach of contract. 
Irregularities. 
Creation of shell companies. 
Shell companies. 

None: case inadmissible 
- the entity concerned 
was considered to be 
outside of EDES’ scope 
– subcontractor of a 
grantee. 

Not applicable 

Not applicable 

Not applicable 

Grave professional 
misconduct 

02/07/2021 

Exclusion for an 18 month 
period. 

Yes 

13/07/2021 

2021/01 

The Italian Competition Authority (AGCM) 
imposed a financial penalty on several 
entities on the entity for entering into an 
agreement with other entities aiming at 
restricting competition in the framework of 
a public procurement procedure for the 
provision of auditing services in the 
implementation of EU funds. The 
misconduct included concerted practices in 
order to influence the outcome of a tender 
by eliminating reciprocal competition and 
allocating lots. 

20 

 
 
SWD REPORT ACTIVITY 2021 

Case 
number 

Facts and findings 

Classification in law 
(exclusion grounds) 

Date of the Panel 
recommendation 

Recommended 
Sanctions 

Recommended 
Publication 

Grave professional 
misconduct 

06/05/2022 

Not to exclude – lack of 
sufficiently established 
facts and findings. 

Not applicable 

Date of 
decision of the 
Authorising 
Officer 
Not applicable 

2021/06 

2021/10 

2021/11 

2021/13 

A Research Foundation sanctioned the 
person concerned for breach of research 
integrity in a research project funded by the 
same Foundation. 

Unauthorized delegation of tasks to third 
parties and non-payment of salaries and 
social security contributions to staff under 
the contract. 

Unauthorized delegation of tasks to third 
parties and non-payment of salaries and 
social security contributions to staff under 
the contract. 

In a tender procedure, the entity indicated 
in its declaration on honour that it had been 
established in a final judgement in 2018 
that it was guilty of grave professional 
misconduct, and was excluded from public 
procurement procedures for three years.  

Serious breach of contractual 
obligations 

03/06/2022 

Serious breach of contractual 
obligations 

04/06/2022 

Grave professional 
misconduct 

28/01/2022 

2021/16/PIF 

Corrupt behaviour of EU staff, breaches of 
Staff Regulations rules such as conflict of 
interest rules. 

Member of staff, financial 
irregularity 

03/06/2022 

21 

Not to exclude - lack of 
sufficiently established 
facts and findings. 

Not to exclude - lack of 
sufficiently established 
facts and findings. 

Not to exclude - the time 
remaining before the 
period of  
exclusion set by the 
national court would 
expire before the 
completion of the 
administrative procedure 
before the Panel.  
Financial irregularity 
committed. 

Not applicable 

Not applicable 

Not applicable 

Not applicable 

Not applicable 

Not applicable 

Not applicable 

Not applicable 

 
 
 
 
 
 
SWD REPORT ACTIVITY 2021 

ANNEX 2 – CHARTS 

1.  Classification in law of Panel Recommendations (cases presented to the Panel in the period 2021 - June 2022) 

Member of staff, 
financial irregularity
3

Financial 
irregularity
1

Assessment of the 
sufficiency of the 
remedial measures taken
1

Serious breach of 
contractual obligations
5

Serious breach of 
contractual obligations / 
Grave professional 
misconduct
1

Serious breach of 
contractual obligations / 
False declarations 
Misrepresentation of 
information
1

22 

Grave 
professional 
misconduct
9

Grave professional 
misconduct / Fraud, 
corruption, criminal 
activities / Serious breach of 
contract / Irregularities / 
Creation of shell companies / 
Shell companies
3

 
 
 
SWD REPORT ACTIVITY 2021 

2.  Sanctions Recommended by the Panel (cases presented to the Panel in the period 2021 - June 2022) 

10

2

2

2

1

3 years exclusion

18 months exclusion

Non exclusions

Exclusions maintained after
analysis of RM

Registration as person of
interest

23 

 
 
 
SWD REPORT ACTIVITY 2021 

3.  Recommended Publication (cases presented to the Panel in the period 2021 - June 2022) 

Published; 2

Recommended 
Publication; 4

Published

Recommended Publication

24 

 
 
SWD REPORT ACTIVITY 2021 

4.  Summary of Cases by programme per Year of filing (number of cases presented to the Panel during 2021 - June 2022) 

9

4

7

3

3

3

3

3

2

2

2

2

0

0

0

0

0

1

1

1

1

2018

2019

2020

2021

2022

Research & Innovation and Communications Networks, content and Technology
External Action and Neighbourhood Policy
Administrative expenditure
Other Institutions
Joint Undertaking

25 

 
 
SWD REPORT ACTIVITY 2021 

5.  Summary of Case Status by programme (number of cases presented to the Panel during 2021 - June 2022) 

9

7

7

5

5

3

Cases assessed by the Panel

Inadmissible

Ongoing Cases

Cases Withdrawn

1

1

1

1

Research & Innovation and
Communications Networks,
content and Technology

External Action and
Neighboorhood Policy

Administrative expenditure

Other Institutions

26 

 
 
 
SWD REPORT ACTIVITY 2021 

6.  Summary of Case Status (cases presented to the Panel during 2021 - June 2022) 

18

10

5

3

1

Sanctioned Cases

Non-Sanctioned
Cases

Opinion issued -
staff members

Inadmissible

Pending Cases

2

Cases withdrawn
by the Authorising
Officer

27 

 
 
 
 
SWD REPORT ACTIVITY 2021 

7.  Sources of referral during the period 2021 - June 2022 

OLAF Report
54%

Other sources
38%

Audit and OLAF report
8%

28