EUROPEAN COMMISSION
Brussels, 3.9.2018
SWD(2018) 386 final
COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT
Statistical evaluation of irregularities reported for 2017: own resources, agriculture, cohesion and fisheries policies, pre-accession and direct expenditure
Accompanying the document
REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL
29th Annual Report on the Protection of the European Union's financial interests - Fight against fraud - 2017
{COM(2018) 553 final}
{SWD(2018) 381 final}
{SWD(2018) 382 final}
{SWD(2018) 383 final}
{SWD(2018) 384 final}
{SWD(2018) 385 final}
Contents
4.
The European Structural and Investment Funds (ESIF)
4.1.
General analysis
4.1.1.
Irregularities reported as fraudulent
4.1.2.
Irregularities not reported as fraudulent
4.1.3. Irregularities reported in relation to the Programming Period 2014-2020
4.2.
Specific Analysis – Irregularities reported in relation to the Programming Period 2007-13
4.2.1.
Objectives concerned by the reported irregularities
4.2.2.
Priorities concerned by the reported irregularities
4.3 Reasons for performing control
4.3.1 Irregularities reported as fraudulent
4.3.2 Irregularities not reported as fraudulent
4.4.
Antifraud and control activities by Member States – programming period 2007-2013
4.4.1.
Duration of irregularities
4.4.2.
Detection of irregularities reported as fraudulent by Member State in relation to the programming period 2007-13
4.4.3.
Fraud detection rate
4.4.4.
Irregularity Detection Rate
4.4.5.
Ratio of established fraud (programming period 2007-13)
4.5 Other shared management Funds
5.
Pre-Accession Policy (Pre-Accession Assistance and Instrument for Pre-Accession I and II)
5.1.
The Pre-accession Assistance (PAA), 2000-06
5.2.
The Instrument for Pre-accession 2007-13 – IPA I
5.3.
The Instrument for Pre-accession 2014-20 – IPA II
5.4.
General analysis
5.4.1.
Pre-accession assistance (PAA)
5.4.2.
Instrument for Pre-Accession (IPA I)
5.5.
Specific analysis – Financial year 2017
5.5.1.
Pre-Accession Assistance (PAA)
5.5.2.
Instrument for Pre-Accession (IPA)
6. Direct Management
6.1. Introduction
6.2. General analysis
6.2.1. Five year analysis 2013-2017
6.3. Specific analysis
6.3.1. Recoveries according policy areas
6.3.2. Recoveries according to legal entity residence
6.3.3. Method of detection
6.3.4. Types of irregularity
6.3.5. Recovery
COUNTRY FACTSHEETS
Belgium - Belgique/België
Bulgaria - България
Czech Republic - Česká republika
Denmark - Danmark
Germany - Deutschland
Estonia - Eesti
Ireland - Éire
Greece - Ελλάδα
Spain - España
France
Croatia - Hrvatska
Italy - Italia
Cyprus - Κύπρος
Latvia - Latvija
Lithuania - Lietuva
Luxembourg
Hungary - Magyarország
Malta
Netherlands - Nederland
Austria - Österreich
Poland - Polska
Portugal
Romania - România
Slovenia - Slovenija
Slovakia - Slovensko
Finland – Suomi-Finland
Sweden - Sverige
United Kingdom
ANNEXES
4.The European Structural and Investment Funds (ESIF)
Over half of EU funding is channelled through the 5 European structural and investment funds (ESIF). They are jointly managed by the European Commission and the EU countries.
The purpose of all these funds is to invest in job creation and a sustainable and healthy European economy and environment.
The ESIF mainly focus on 5 areas:
–research and innovation;
–digital technologies;
–supporting the low-carbon economy;
–sustainable management of natural resources;
–small businesses.
The European structural and investment funds are:
–European regional development fund (ERDF) – promotes balanced development in the different regions of the EU;
–European social fund (ESF) - supports employment-related projects throughout Europe and invests in Europe’s human capital – its workers, its young people and all those seeking a job;
–Cohesion fund (CF) – funds transport and environment projects in countries where the gross national income (GNI) per inhabitant is less than 90% of the EU average. In 2014-2020, these are Bulgaria, Croatia, Cyprus, the Czech Republic, Estonia, Greece, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Malta, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia and Slovenia;
–European agricultural fund for rural development (EAFRD) – focuses on resolving the particular challenges facing EU's rural areas;
–European maritime and fisheries fund (EMFF) – helps fishermen to adopt sustainable fishing practices and coastal communities to diversify their economies, improving quality of life along European coasts.
Due to the rules of functioning of the EMFF and (European Fisheries Fund (EFF)), which are very similar to those of the other structural funds, irregularities reported by Member States in relation to fisheries policies are treated in this chapter jointly with the funds for cohesion and economic convergence.
All these funds are managed by the EU countries themselves, by means of partnership agreements. Each country prepares an agreement, in collaboration with the European Commission, setting out how the funds will be used during the current funding period 2014-2020. Partnership agreements lead to a series of investment programmes channelling the funding to the different regions and projects in the policy areas concerned.
For 2014-2020, EUR 454 billion in ESIF funding has been allocated to promote job creation and growth. National co-financing is expected to amount to at least EUR 183 billion, with total investment reaching EUR 637 billion.
These resources will contribute to:
·Strengthening Research and Innovation;
·Supporting the digital single market;
·Supporting the growth of Europe’s small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs);
·Supporting the energy union and the low-carbon economy;
·Investing in environmental protection and resource efficiency;
·Climate change and risk prevention;
·Supporting sustainable transport;
·Promoting sustainable and quality employment;
·Promoting social inclusion;
·Investing in education and training;
·Support youth employment;
·Strengthening institutional capacity and efficient public administration.
However, this section of the report will focus on previous programming periods, as only a very limited part of the reported irregularities refer to the period 2014-2020.
4.1.General analysis
In comparison with the other budget sectors, the analysis of the cohesion policy poses a higher level of complexity, as information refers to different programming periods, which are regulated by different rules.
Table CP1 offers an overview of the number of irregularities (both fraudulent and non-fraudulent) reported from 2013 to 2017, by programming period (PP) and fund.
Table CP1 does not suggest any major diversion from known trends and patterns in detection and reporting of irregularities, with the exception of year 2015. In this year, the number of reported irregularities doubled, before decreasing in the following years. In relation to this 2015 peak, the following can be pointed out:
1)The increase was mainly related to the PP 2007-13.
a.It was for the greatest part linked to the reporting of irregularities by one Member State (Spain), which covered almost half of the total number of irregularities reported in 2015.
a.This Spanish anomalous increase was due to delayed reporting of irregularities detected throughout the programming period. If they were excluded, the number of reported irregularities would still be higher than in 2014. However, this increase would be more in line with the programming cycle of the funds.
b. When support is based on multi-annual programmes, it can be expected that the number of irregularities increases around the end of the eligibility period and decreases afterwards, when routine controls are less intense. In general, it should be kept in mind that increases in the number of reported irregularities can be influenced by detection capacity building by the Member State.
2)A minor, yet still striking increase in reporting was observed in relation to the previous PP 2000-06. The number of irregularities almost doubled from 2014 to 2015. In this respect, the explanation is belated reporting by another Member State (Ireland).
Table CP2 offers an overview by PP and fund of the financial amounts involved in irregularities detected and reported to the European Commission over the last five years. While the number of reported irregularities peaked in 2015 and gradually, but significantly decreased in the following years, the involved financial amounts were stable in 2016, before declining at a slower pace. This trend implied a raise of the average financial amounts, both in 2016 (+17%) and 2017 (+40.5%).
This was mainly due to:
·the high amounts involved in the irregularities affecting the Cohesion Fund, which finances infrastructure projects of very high value and in relation to which, sometimes, individual cases of irregularities involving very high amounts can be detected. The financial amounts related to PP 2007-2013 significantly increased in 2016 (+36%) while the financial amounts in 2017 were pushed further by irregularities related to PP 2014-2020;
·the steep upward trend in the average amount of the irregularities pertaining to the ERDF in the programming period 2007-2013 (+16% in 2016 and +53% in 2017) which represent the large majority of all irregularities. Furthermore, in 2017 irregularities related to PP 2014-2020 started to be significantly reported.
The trend of the financial amounts must be assessed while bearing in mind that it can be strongly influenced by single observations of significant value. During 2013-2017, cases which involved over EUR 5 million represented less than 1% in terms of numbers, but 38% in terms of amounts. 71% of these cases concerned the ERDF, while 22% concerned the Cohesion Fund. The average financial amount of cases related to the Cohesion fund was 33% higher than that of ERDF cases. In such a context, where such a significant portion of the financial amounts is linked to a relatively low number of cases, fluctuations are more likely and should not be misinterpreted.
While focusing on PP 2007-2013, section 4.3 will deal with the reasons why controls that led to discover irregularities were performed. That analysis will bring to a number of findings about the frequency and potential of information from media, EU bodies, tips and risk analysis. Here a different perspective is taken. Reference is made to the irregularities reported during the period 2013-2017, including all programming periods. Within this context, when focusing on the 'over 5 mln' cases, it can be noticed that these reasons for performing the control were more present than in the overall set of cases, in particular with regard to information from EU bodies. Even if this is based on a relatively low number of cases, this corroborates the hypothesis that these targeted controls based on information from media, EU bodies, tips or risk analysis have the potential to lead to better results.
4.1.1.Irregularities reported as fraudulent
4.1.1.1.Trend by programming period
Table CP3 provides an overview by PP and fund of the irregularities reported as fraudulent in the last five years (2013-2017).
Irregularities reported as fraudulent in 2017 have increased by 10% since 2013, while they have decreased by 18% in comparison with the 2015 peak.
During the last five years, while the fraudulent irregularities linked to the PP 2000-06 have been decreasing to reach nearly 0 in 2017, those linked to the PP 2007-13 have peaked in 2015 and gradually decreased in the following years. These trends are linked to the implementation cycle of PP 2007-2013 and the closure of PP 2000-2006. Apart from very few cases in 2015 and 2016, reporting related to PP 2014-2020 started in 2017 (more than 10% of all cases reported in 2017 as fraudulent)
Table CP4 provides an overview by PP and Fund of the financial amounts involved in cases reported as fraudulent. As already indicated on several occasions, the trend of the financial amounts is more subject to fluctuations due to the possibility of individual cases involving high amounts. While the number of irregularities peaked in 2015, the involved financial amounts resumed strong growth in 2017. This was mainly due to irregularities pertaining the programming period 2007-2013, with noticeable increases for the Cohesion fund (+349%) and the ERDF (+34%), and the programming period 2014-2020, where significant reporting started for the Cohesion Fund. These increases were mainly due to higher financial amounts reported by Slovakia (Cohesion Fund and ERDF), Romania (ERDF) and Portugal (ERDF).
Focusing on PP 2007-2013, the financial amounts involved in irregularities reported as fraudulent for the ERDF were predominant (73% in 2013-2017), also due to the high share of EU financing that is channel through this fund..
4.1.1.2.Trend by Fund
The analysis of the same data presented in Tables CP3 and CP4 but focussed on the distribution of the irregularities reported as fraudulent by Fund (Tables CP5 and CP6), highlights the following situations:
(1)2015 witnessed a peak in the number of irregularities: this was the end year of eligiblity for Cohesion programmes (PP 2007-2013), when irregularities reported can be expected to increase. The number of irregularities reported by the MS in relation to PP 2007-2013 jumped, both with reference to the ERDF (+105%) and the ESF (+46%). The related financial amounts moved in the same direction (+166% for the ERDF and +268% for the ESF). In 2016, figures concerning the ESF reverted down to previous levels.
(2)2017 showed an increase in financial amounts despite a decrease in the number of irregularities. This was the year of closure of Cohesion programmes, when the number of irregularities can be expected to decrease, while the amounts involved are not strictly correlated to the number of irregularities. This increase was due to a growth in the financial amounts involved in CF irregularities (+611%) and, to a lesser extent, in ERDF irregularities (+38%);
(3)The highest number of cases and absolute financial amounts (not relative to payments) relate to the ERDF. The number of cases increased significantly from 2013 to 2017, due to an upward shift in 2015, followed by stable reporting in 2016 and a slight decline in 2017. The financial amounts increased until 2017 (with the exception of 2016). The average financial amount significantly increased in 2017 (+55%);
(4)Potential frauds affecting the Cohesion fund are now reported regularly (since 2010), and from 2016 to 2017 doubled, in terms of number, and became seven times higher, in terms of financial amounts. Fluctuations of the amounts, however, can be particularly significant in respect of these cases, because of fewer cases and high amounts involved in the projects financed by the Cohesion Fund.
(5)Both in terms of numbers and, even more, of financial amounts, cases related to the ESF peaked in 2015 and their share on the total during 2013-2017 exceeded 15%, in terms of financial amounts (similar to CF);
2
4.1.2.Irregularities not reported as fraudulent
Table CP7 provides an overview by PP and fund of the irregularities not reported as fraudulent in the last five years (2013-2017).
The reasons behind the high increase in 2015 have already been explained under section 4.1.
After 2015, the decrease in the number of irregularities was fast for the ERDF (as from 2016) and the ESF (as from 2017) and more gradual for the CF. The financial amounts followed a different pattern and increased further in 2016, before falling in 2017, but not as much as the number of irregularities.
The average financial amounts for PP 2007-2013 have been increasing since 2016: CF (+49% in 2016), ERDF (+19% in 2016, +45% in 2017), ESF (+32% in 2016, +23% in 2017). For PP 2000-2006, the financial amounts reported in relation to the ERDF dropped in 2016. In general, irregularities for this PP are fading towards zero. Considering the fact that irregularities reported as fraudulent usually imply higher financial amounts, one may suppose that some of the cases notified as non-fraudulent might be reclassified later as potentially fraudulent.
In 2016, the reporting of irregularities referring to PP 2014-2020 started and increased in 2017, as implementation is progressing. Number and financial amounts are still low, but they can be expected to grow during next years, in line with the implementation cycle. Anti-fraud capacity building by Member States and new anti-fraud provisions may contribute to this increase. The average financial amounts are still lower than for PP 2007-2013 but, in this comparison with previous PP, the ESF sticks out, with very low averages of about EUR 8,300 and 14,800 in 2016 and 2017, respectively.
Table CP8 shows the financial amounts involved in the irregularities not reported as fraudulent. Once more, as already mentioned several times in relation to the financial amounts, fluctuations can happen more often, as they can be linked to individual irregularities or groups of irregularities of significant value, which produce distortive effects from one year to the next.
4.1.3. Irregularities reported in relation to the Programming Period 2014-2020
Table CP9 provides an overview of all the irregularities and related financial amounts that have been reported up to 2017 with reference to PP 2014-2020.
Apart from a few cases in 2015, reporting of these irregularities started in 2016 and increased in 2017. This is consistent with the implementation cycle of the ongoing programming period. There is not enough data yet to present a meaningful analysis focusing on PP 2014-2020.
4.2.Specific Analysis – Irregularities reported in relation to the Programming Period 2007-13
This section of the analysis focuses on the irregularities reported in relation to the PP 2007-13. The closure for the programming period started in March 2017; it therefore offers an ideal opportunity to present an overview of what has happened. Consequently, the analysis will cover a greater time span than the previous section (2013 to 2017), to examine all information available, which dates back to 2008.
It will cover the following aspects:
·Objectives;
·Priorities and themes affected;
·Types of irregularity
4.2.1.Objectives concerned by the reported irregularities
The reported irregularities followed the pattern that could be expected in relation to the implementation cycle (Table CP10). The majority of the irregularities were notified over the last three years of the reference period and mainly concerned the Convergence objective (60% of the total), in line with the fact that this is the objective to which the greatest financial resources are allocated and in relation to which higher risks are associated. The anomaly concerning the year 2015 has already been explained. For 187 irregularities, the objective was not mentioned by the Member States.
Table CP11 provides information about the financial amounts involved in the reported irregularities. They broadly followed the same pattern of the number of irregularities in Table CP10, with the exception of the amounts linked to the Convergence objective reported in 2012, which exceeded those related to the following two years, and those related to 2016, which are higher than those reported in 2015. In 2016, irregular amounts reported in relation to the Cohesion Fund were exceptionally high, as already showed in Table CP2 and highlighted in section 4.1.
As for the number of irregularities, the majority of financial amounts were notified over the last three years and mainly concerned the Convergence objective (77%).
4.2.1.1.Irregularities reported as fraudulent by Objective
Table CP12 and CP13 include only the irregularities reported as fraudulent in relation to PP 2007-13. The trends are similar to those presented in the previous section for all irregularities in relation to PP 2007-2013. A difference that is worth highlighting is the strong increase in the number of irregularities in 2016 in relation to Convergence (while the sum of fraudulent and non fraudulent irregularities decreased) and the exceptional drop in 2016 in relation to 'Regional competitiveness and employment'.
With reference to the financial amounts, fluctuations are emphasized, as high profile cases can have a significant impact.
The higher share represented by the Convergence objective in comparison with that presented in the previous section is also significant (68% of cases and 88% of financial amounts).
Irregularities reported as fraudulent represented about 4.9% of the total number of irregularities reported for PP 2007-13. The highest percentage (Fraud Frequency Level – FFL) was related to the Fisheries (7.1%), the European Territorial Cooperation (6.6%) and to the Convergence (5.6%) objectives. Regional competitiveness and Employment had the lowest FFL (2.8%).
Financial amounts involved in irregularities reported as fraudulent represented about 14.7% of the total reported for PP 2007-13. The highest share (Fraud Amount Level – FAL) was related to the European Territorial Cooperation (19.9%), the Fisheries (18.2%) and the Convergence (16.7%) objectives. Regional competitiveness and Employment had the lowest FAL (4.7%).
The difference between FFL and FAL indicates the higher financial impact of fraudulent irregularities compared to the non-fraudulent infringements. As a matter of fact, the average financial value involved in irregularities reported as fraudulent is more than three times higher than that related to the non-fraudulent types.
4.2.1.2.Fraud and Irregularity Detection Rates by Objective
Table CP14 shows the FDR and the IDR per objective.
Looking at the overall detection rate (FDR+IDR), Regional competitiveness and employment programmes show a relatively low level of detection. European Territorial Cooperation programmes, however, show an anomalously low level of detection (about four times lower than the previous objective), especially if one considers that the previous two indicators (FFL and FAL) were high. The situation is different for Convergence, Fisheries and Multiobjective programmes, where the detection rate approaches or is higher than 3%.
4.2.2.Priorities concerned by the reported irregularities
4.2.2.1.Irregularities reported as fraudulent (fisheries not included)
The operational programmes financed by the Cohesion Policy are implemented in relation to the already mentioned objectives, but also along identified Priorities and Themes.
The information provided by the Member States allows for an analysis of the priority areas in relation to which projects potentially affected by fraudulent practices have been identified.
Table CP15 shows the number of irregularities reported as fraudulent by priority area since the beginning of the PP 2007-13, their related financial amounts, the average amount per irregularity, FFL, FAL and FDR.
In terms of numbers, the 'Priorities' most concerned were 'Research and Technological Development (RTD)', 'Increasing the adaptability of workers and firms, enterprises and entrepreneurs' and 'Improving access to employment and sustainability'.
Irregularities reported as fraudulent in relation to these three priorities represent about 37% of the total.
FFL is highest for 'Tourism' (11.7%) and 'Strengthening institutional capacity' (9.7%), while the top four priorities (in terms of FFL) in the Table are all above or equal to 9%, which is double the average.
From the financial amounts point of view, the most significant results concern 'Transport, 'RTD' and 'Urban and rural regeneration'. ‘Transport’ retains by far the highest average value, more than ten times R&TD and the overall average. Financial amounts related to the irregularities reported as fraudulent in relation to these three priorities represent 49% of the total.
FAL is highest for 'Urban and rural regeneration' (40%), 'Tourism' (33%), 'Investment in social infrastructure' (24%), and 'Increasing the adaptability of workers, firms, enterprises' (20%). The priorities 'Tourism' and 'Urban and rural regeneration' stand out in terms of FDR.
Irregularities linked to the EFF have not been included. Reference to 'Technical assistance Fisheries' and 'Measures of common interest – fishery' in Table CP15 may depend on errors in encoding by Member States.
For about 27% of the irregularities used for this analysis information was not provided about the priority area concerned, decreasing in comparison with previous years.
4.2.2.2.Irregularities not reported as fraudulent (fisheries not included)
The same analysis showed in the previous section for the irregularities reported as fraudulent is presented here for the irregularities not reported as fraudulent in relation to the PP 2007-13.
Table CP16 provides an overview of the number of irregularities not reported as fraudulent by priority area since the beginning of the PP 2007-13, their related financial amounts and average amount per irregularity and IDR.
Again, ‘Research and Technological Development (R&TD)’ was the priority with the highest number of occurrences, followed by ‘Environmental protection and risk prevention’ and ‘Transport’. ‘Research and Technological Development (R&TD)’ was first also in terms of financial amounts, closely followed by 'Transport' and, at a distance, by ‘Environmental protection and risk prevention’. Irregularities linked to these three priorities together represent 23.6% of the total number and 45.4% of the total amounts.
The priorities 'Tourism', ‘Research and Technological Development (R&TD)’, 'Information society' and ‘Transport’ show a IDR higher than or equal to 2%.
Irregularities linked to the EFF have not been included. Reference to priorities specific to this policy area may depend on errors in encoding by national authorities.
The number of cases not reported as fraudulent for which information about the priority area concerned was missing remains high (45%) and higher than for the fraudulent irregularities, while it is improving.
4.2.2.3.Irregularities related to the priorities 'R&TD' and 'Transport' by theme
Research and Technological Development (R&TD)
As metioned, ‘Research and Technological Development (R&TD)’ is the priority for which the highest number of irregularities, fraudulent and non-fraudulent, have been detected and reported: in total, 4 965 cases, involving over EUR 2 billion.
Figure CP1 below, details the specific priority themes that were affected by these irregularities. The description of the themes has been shortened to simplify, but the full decription can be consulted in Annex 15. Please note that the larger the square, the higher the number of irregularities; the darker the colour, the higher the financial amounts involved.
Two "residual" themes are those showing the highest number of reported irregularities: 'Other investment in firms' and 'Other measures to stimulate research and innovation and entrepreneurship in SMEs'. Together they represented 48% of the reported irregularities, but only 21% of the related financial amounts. Conversely, the themes 'Investment in firms directly linked to research and innovation ' and 'R&TD activities in research centres' represented only 23.5% of the total number of reported irregularities, but accounted for almost 52% of the total financial amounts involved.
Figure CP2 shows the same level of detail for the irregularities reported as fraudulent.
Similarly to the overall picture, the highest number of irregularities reported as fraudulent affected the theme 'Other investment in firms', but it was followed by the theme 'Investment in firms directly linked to research and innovation'. The latter was also the theme with the largest share of the financial amounts involved in cases reported as fraudulent (40.5%), followed again - but at a distance - by the theme 'R&TD activities in research centres'. The latter was not frequent, but involved relatively high amounts, similarly to the theme 'Assistance in RTD, in particular SMEs'. On the contrary, the most frequently affected theme 'Other investment in firms' involved a low average financial amount.
The two most frequent themes accounted for 53.5% of cases and 53% of financial amounts. The two themes with the highest financial amounts accounted for 28% of cases and 55% of value.
Transport
As mentioned, 'Transport' was the priority for which the financial amounts involved in irregularities was similar to ‘Research and Technological Development (R&TD)’ (over EUR 1.8 billion). However, the average amount was the highest, both for irregularities reported as fraudulent (EUR 7,851,966) and not (EUR 876,902).
Similar to Figure CP1, Figure CP3 below, details the specific priority themes that were affected by these irregularities.
'Regional/local roads' was the theme most frequently affected by irregularities (either fraudulent or non fraudulent), accounting alone for 46% of the total number. Nevertheless, the financial amounts involved in these cases were only 11% of the total. On the contrary, the themes 'Motorways (TEN-T)' and 'Railways' accounted only for 13% of the irregularities, but 60% of the financial amounts.
Figure CP4 shows the same level of detail for the irregularities reported as fraudulent.
The picture is similar when the focus is moved on the irregularities reported as fraudulent. 46% of these irregularities concern 'Regional/local roads' involving just 13% of the financial amounts. 'Motorways (TEN-T)' and 'Railways' accounted only for 19% of the irregularities reported as fraudulent, but 72% of the financial amounts.
4.2.2.4.Types of irregularities / modus operandi detected related to the priorities 'R&TD' and 'Transport'
Table CP17 provides an overview of the categories of irregularities reported in connection with the priority ‘Research and Technological Development (R&TD)’ within PP 2007-2013, including a focus on the irregularities reported as fraudulent.
The same irregularity may be associated to several categories of infringement. That is why the row of totals has been omitted: it would have resulted in multiple counting of the same notification of irregularity.
In general, 8% of cases affecting the priority ‘Research and Technological Development (R&TD)’ were reported as fraudulent (see table CP15).
Irregularities mainly took place during the implementation of a project as contract infringements, which implied that the project was not implemented according to what was initially agreed (category 'Infringement of contract provisions/rules'). This happened in 39% of all cases and 42% of cases reported as fraudulent. 8.6% of these violations were reported as fraudulent.
The following category refers to incorrect, missing, false or falsified supporting documents, which were used in 18% of all cases and 37% of cases reported as fraudulent. 84% of these violations were not reported as fraudulent, among which there were a few cases (17) of false or falsified supporting documents.
The category 'Eligibility / Legitimacy of expenditure / measure' was similarly present in all cases (17%) and in cases reported as fraudulent (15%).
Violation of public procurement rules were perpetrated in 14% of all 'RTD' cases (715 out of 4,965 irregularities – see Table CP17 and compare with Tables CP15 and CP16) and only 5.5% of cases reported as fraudulent (22 out of 398 irregularities – see Table CP17 and compare with Table CP15). Only 3% of the violations concerning public procurement were reported as fraudulent (22 violations out of 715 – see Table CP17).
In general, the category 'Ethics and Integrity' refers to violations concerning conflict of interest, bribery, corruption, but the residual type ‘Other irregularities concerning integrity and ethics’ was the most used (followed by 'conflict of interest'). Besides these two types of violation, only one case of corruption was reported.
Violations concerning 'ethics and integrity' were rarely reported, but were more frequent among irregularities reported as fraudulent (3%) than within the entire population of irregularities (0.5%). These violations are the ones with the relative highest frequency of potential fraud (48%).
Similarly to Table CP17, Table CP18 provides an overview of the categories of irregularities reported in connection with the priority ‘Transport’ within PP 2007-2013, including a focus on the irregularities reported as fraudulent.
In general, it can be noticed that 2.3% of cases affecting the priority ‘Transport’ were reported as fraudulent.
Infringements of 'public procurement' rules were the most reported (in 67% of cases), but only in less than 1% of cases these infringement were reported as fraudulent (9 violations out of 1,198 – see Table CP18).
Violations concerning 'ethics and integrity' were rarely reported, but were more frequent among irregularities reported as fraudulent (27%) than within the entire population of irregularities (0.7%). These violations were the ones with the highest relative frequency of potential fraud (92%). More specifically, the types of violations reported included 'Conflict of interest', 'Corruption' and 'Other irregularities concerning ethics and integrity'
Incorrect, missing, false or falsified documents were used only in 4% of all cases, but in 56% of cases reported as fraudulent. 70% of these violations were reported as non fraudulent, among which there were a few cases (3) of use of false or falsified documents.
Violations concerning 'Eligibility / Legitimacy of expenditure / measure' were the second most frequent category both among all irregularities and among the subset on irregularities reported as fraudulent.
4.2.2.5.Geographical distribution of irregularities (fraudulent and non-fraudulent) detected in relation to the 'R&TD' and 'Transport' priorities
Maps CP1 and CP2 show the geographical distribution of the irregularities (fraudulent and non-fraudulent) reported in relation to the priorities 'R&TD' and 'Transport'.
The contribution of Poland was significant and balanced between 'RTD' and 'Transport', as in both priorities this Member State detected about 25% of all relevant irregularities.
Other Member States were relatively more affected by (or were more efficient in detecting) irregularities related to 'RTD', such as Hungary, Italy, the United Kingdom, Portugal and Germany, while in other Member States irregularities related to 'Transport' weighed more, such as in Romania, Czech Republic, Latvia and Bulgaria.
4.3 Reasons for performing control
4.3.1 Irregularities reported as fraudulent
In the context of the antifraud cycle, the detection capability is a key feature, which contributes to the effectiveness and efficiency of the system for the protection of the EU budget.
Table CP19 provides an overview of the reasons why controls were performed with reference to the Cohesion policy for the PP 2007-2013, with a focus on controls that led to discover irregularities reported as fraudulent. The description of the 'reason for performing control' has been shortened to simplify the Table and associated Charts and Graphs, but the full description can be consulted in Annex 14.
The straight lines in the graphs associated to Table CP19 represent the border between 'reasons' that led to identify irregularities with an average amount above or below the global average (that takes into account all potential frauds affecting the Cohesion policy for PP 2007-2013). The vertical distance between a point representing a specific reason and the straight line is an indicator of how higher or lower was the yield of controls started for that specific reason, in comparison with the hypothetical situation where these controls involved financial amounts in line with the global average.
'Routine' is the most reported reason, but it shows a low average financial amount of the related irregularities.
The highest financial amounts were involved in irregularities where 'Judicial enquiry' was mentioned as a reason for performing the control. 62% of controls that started because of a judicial enquiry were concentrated in 3 Member States: Czech Republic, Poland and Romania.
Controls that were started because of information provided by whistle-blowers, informants, etc. or media were fewer, but led to good results, in particular in the case of media. The Czech Republic and Germany were the Member States with more tip-motivated controls leading to discover a potentially fraudulent irregularity (informants, whistle-blowers, etc.). Media-motivated controls were performed more frequently in the Czech Republic.
Controls that started because of 'information and/or request by an EU-body' are largely above-the-average, in terms of average financial amount of the related irregularities.
'Risk analysis' is not often reported as the reason for performing a control that led to identify an irregularity reported as fraudulent. Basically, all of these instances were reported by Slovakia. The average financial amount of these cases is largely above-the-average.
4.3.2 Irregularities not reported as fraudulent
Table CP20 provides an overview of the reasons why controls were performed with reference to the Cohesion policy and PP 2007-2013, with a focus on controls that led to identify irregularities not reported as fraudulent. For an explanation of the associate graphs, please see section 3.3.1. The description of the 'reason for performing control' has been shortened to simplify the Table and associated Charts and Graphs, but the full description can be consulted in Annex 14.
'Routine' is the most reported reason, but it shows a low average financial amount.
On average, when a control is started because of a 'judicial' enquiry, the financial amount involved is very high. These cases were concentrated in Italy, the Czech Republic, Poland and Lithuania.
Also 'Media' is a reason that led to discover irregularities with an average financial amount above the relevant global average. Similarly to the irregularities reported as fraudulent, many of these cases were reported by the Czech Republic.
A noticeable number of cases were started because of information from an EU body or an irregularity detected and reported by an EU body. Both typologies showed high average financial amounts.
'Risk analysis' led to identify a number of irregularities, which involved an average financial amount below the relevant global average. Most of these irregularities were detected in Poland.
Another reason that might imply some form of risk analysis ('comparison of data') led to better results in terms of financial amounts, but it also showed a relatively low frequency or low 'detection capability' (208 cases against 7,851 cases identified by 'routine'). Lithuania, the Czech Republic and Portugal reported the majority of the 'Comparison of data' cases.
4.4.Antifraud and control activities by Member States – programming period 2007-2013
Previous sections have examined the trend and main characteristics of the reported irregularities.
The present section aims at examining some aspects linked to the antifraud and control activities and results of Member States. Four elements are taken into account:
·the duration of the irregularities;
·the number of irregularities reported as fraudulent by each Member State;
·the fraud detection rate (FDR - the ratio between the amounts involved in cases reported as fraudulent and the payments occurred in relation to the PP 2007-13) and the irregularity detection rate (IDR - the ratio between the amounts involved in cases not reported as fraudulent and the payments occurred in relation to the PP 2007-13);
·the ratio of cases of established fraud on the total number of irregularities reported as fraudulent.
4.4.1.Duration of irregularities
Of the 39,803 irregularities (fraudulent and non-fraudulent) reported by Member States in relation to the PP 2007-13, 19,663 (49% of the total) involved infringements that have been protracted during a span of time. For the 1,934 irregularities reported as fraudulent, this percentage is higher at about 61%. The remaining part of the dataset refers to irregularities which consisted of a single act identifiable on a precise date (about 23% of the whole dataset and 28% of that including exclusively the fraudulent irregularities) or for which no reliable information has been provided (28% of the whole dataset and 12% of the irregularities reported as fraudulent).
The average duration of the irregularities which have been protracted over time was 21 months (i.e. 1 year and 9 month). For the irregularities reported as fraudulent, this average was similar: 20 months.
4.4.2.Detection of irregularities reported as fraudulent by Member State in relation to the programming period 2007-13
Map CP3 shows the number of irregularities reported as fraudulent by Member State in relation to the PP 2007-13.
Only Luxembourg has notified no irregularity as fraudulent; thirteen (13) Member States reported less than 30 potentially fraudulent irregularities; four (4) countries reported between 30 and 60; three (3) Member States between 60 and 90; six (6) more than 90.
Poland, Romania and Germany are the three countries which have reported the highest numbers.
4.4.3.Fraud detection rate
The fraud detection rate compares the results obtained by Member States in their fight against fraud with the related payments. Considering the multi-annual nature of the cohesion policy spending programmes, no annual analysis is proposed, focusing instead on the whole PP 2007-13, for which the documents for closure have been presented during 2017.
The FDR is the highest for Slovakia and Romania, above 1%. Other Member States (Czech Republic, Latvia, Slovenia, Poland and Portugal) show a FDR between 0.5% and 1%.
Programmes under the Territorial Cooperation Programme (designated in the table under the country code 'CB', last row before the total) can involve several countries and, therefore, paid amounts are spread among the beneficiaries in various Member States. However, in general, irregularities for these programmes are reported by the Member State in which the expenditure is paid out by the beneficiary in implementing the operation. For this reason, the sums paid have been included in the total, while the irregularities reported as fraudulent and the related amounts have already been computed in relation to the country having reported them. The 'CB' numbers have been included in the table to calculate the FDR related to these programmes, but they are not summed in the total row to avoid a double counting.
4.4.4.Irregularity Detection Rate
The irregularity detection rate compares the results obtained by Member States in detecting non-fraudulent irregularities with the related payments. Considering the multi-annual nature of the Cohesion policy spending programmes, no annual analysis is proposed, focusing instead on the whole programming period 2007-13, for which the documents for closure have been presented during 2017.
The IDR is the highest for Slovakia (nearly 10%) and for Czech Republic, Spain and Greece (between 4% and 5%).
Programmes under the Territorial Cooperation Programme (designated in the table under the "country-code" 'CB', last row before the total) can involve several countries and, therefore, paid amounts are spread among the beneficiaries in various Member States. However, in general, irregularities for these programmes are reported by the Member State in which expenditure is paid out by the beneficiary in implementing the operation. For this reason, the sums paid have been included in the total, while the irregularities not reported as fraudulent and the related amounts have already been computed in relation to the country having reported them. The 'CB' numbers have been included in the table to calculate the IDR related to these programmes, but they are not summed in the total row to avoid a double counting.
4.4.5.Ratio of established fraud (programming period 2007-13)
Table CP23 shows the ratio between the cases of established fraud and the total number of irregularities reported as fraudulent (including suspected and established fraud) in the period 2009-13. Taking into account only cases reported in 2017 would be meaningless, as the criminal proceedings leading to a conviction for fraud may take several years, while using the period 2010-14 or later periods would make it impossible to make a sound comparison with figures published in the 2013 Report.
Table CP23 is integrated with the ‘Dismissal ratio’, calculated as the differences between the total number of irregularities reported as fraudulent at the time of the 2013 Report and the total that takes into account the updates received until the end of 2017. A positive ratio means that Member States have classified as ‘suspected’ or ‘established fraud’ irregularities appearing as non-fraudulent in 2013.
In this respect, the average ratio of established fraud at EU level is 16%, increasing from 14% of 2016. The dismissal ratio is 11%.
If one considers exclusively the “decisions” (established + dismissed) of the 176 decided cases (98 established fraud and 78 dismissals), 56% is the ‘conviction rate’ and 44% the ‘dismissal rate’.
4.5 Other shared management Funds
There are other funds used under shared management. Table CP24 provides an overview of all the irregularities and related financial amounts that have been reported up to 2017 with reference to:
·Asylum, Migration and Integration Fund (AMIF): This Fund was set up for the period 2014-20, with a total of about EUR 3.1 billion. It is meant to promote the efficient management of migration flows and the implementation, strengthening and development of a common Union approach to asylum and immigration. The largest share of the total amount of the AMIF (approximately 88%) is to be channelled through shared management. Member States implement their multiannual National Programmes, which are prepared, implemented, monitored and evaluated by the responsible national authorities, in partnership with the relevant stakeholders in the field, including the civil society. All Member States except Denmark participate in the implementation of this Fund. Examples of beneficiaries of the programmes implemented under this Fund can be state and federal authorities, local public bodies, non-governmental organisations, humanitarian organisations, private and public law companies and education and research organisations.
·Fund for European Aid to the Most Deprived (FEAD): Over EUR 3.8 billion are earmarked for this Fund for the period 2014-2020. FEAD supports Member States' actions to provide material assistance to the most deprived, including food, clothing and other essential items for personal use. Material assistance needs to go hand in hand with social inclusion measures, such as guidance and support to help people out of poverty. National authorities may also support non-material assistance to the most deprived people, to help them integrate better into society. Following the Commission's approval of national programmes, national authorities decide about the delivery of the assistance through partner organisations (public bodies or often non-governmental organisations).
· European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (EGF): This Fund provides support to people losing their jobs as a result of major structural changes in world trade patterns due to globalisation or as a result of the global economic and financial crisis. The EGF has a maximum annual budget of EUR 150 million for the period 2014-2020. It can fund up to 60% of the cost of projects designed to help workers made redundant find another job or set up their own business. EGF cases are managed and implemented by national or regional authorities. Each project runs for 2 years.
·Internal Security Fund (ISF): This fund was set up for the period 2014-20, with a total of EUR 3.8 billion. The Fund promotes the implementation of the Internal Security Strategy, law enforcement cooperation and the management of the Union's external borders. The ISF is composed of two instruments, ISF Borders and Visa (B&V) and ISF Police. For the 2014-20 period
oEUR 2.76 billion is available for funding actions under the ISF B&V instrument, of which EUR 1.55 billion are to be channelled through shared management. All Member States except Ireland and the United Kingdom participate in the implementation;
oabout EUR 1 billion is available for funding actions under the ISF Police instrument, of which EUR 662 million are to be channelled through shared management. All Member States except Denmark and the United Kingdom participate in the implementation.
·Youth Employment Initiative (YEI): While supporting the Youth Guarantee, YEI is targeted to young people who are not in education, employment or training (NEETs), including the long-term unemployed or those not registered as job-seekers. It ensures that in parts of Europe where the challenges are most acute, young people can receive targeted support. The total budget of the YEI is EUR 8.8 billion for the period 2014-2020. Of the total budget of EUR 8.8 billion, EUR 4.4 billion comes from a dedicated Youth Employment budget line, which is complemented by EUR 4.4 billion more from ESF national allocations.
5.Pre-Accession Policy (Pre-Accession Assistance and Instrument for Pre-Accession I and II)
Pre-Accession Assistance is provided through decentralised management where third countries distribute funds but account to the EU for how it is spent. In the last stages new Member States manage pre-accession funds under shared management to help them complete the transition. The goal of the EU as a global player is also promoted through direct management.
The assistance in pre-accession is provided on the basis of the European Partnerships of the potential candidates and the Accession Partnerships of the candidate countries. The current candidate countries are Albania, the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (FYROM), Montenegro, Serbia and Turkey. Potential candidate countries are Bosnia and Herzegovina and Kosovo.
5.1.The Pre-accession Assistance (PAA), 2000-06
The old Pre-accession Assistance (PAA), regarding the period 2000-06, was financed by a number of European Union programmes and financial instruments for candidate countries or potential candidate countries, namely the programmes for candidate countries,
PHARE
,
SAPARD
and
ISPA
, Phare Cross-Border Cooperation (CBC) and Coordination, Pre-accession financial assistance for Turkey, Assistance for reconstruction, development and stabilisation for potential candidate countries (
CARDS
) and Transition facility.
5.2.The Instrument for Pre-accession 2007-13 – IPA I
The Instrument for Pre-Accession Assistance (IPA), which covered the period 2007-2013, was delivered through five components. The policy and programming of IPA consisted of
Multi-Annual Indicative Financial Framework
(MIFF) on a three year basis, established by country, component and a theme, and
Multi-Annual Indicative Planning Documents
(MIPDs) per country or per groups of countries (regional and horizontal programmes). The Candidate Countries had to submit also Strategic Coherence Frameworks (SCF) and Multi-annual Operational Programmes, both regarding IPA Components III and IV. Their principal aim was to prepare beneficiary countries for the future use of the Cohesion policy instruments by imitating closely its strategic documents, National Strategic Reference Framework (NSRF) and Operational Programmes (OP), and management modes.
The financing of IPA was provided by the five following different components and European Commission's
Directorate General
'Neighbourhood & Enlargement Negotiations' leads in the coordination of the instrument:
(1)Component I, Transition Assistance and Institution Building (TAIB), managed by the European Commission's
Directorate General
'Neighbourhood & Enlargement Negotiations';
(2)Component II, Cross-Border Cooperation, in part managed by the European Commission's
Directorate General
'Neighbourhood & Enlargement Negotiations' and in part managed, under shared management with Member States, by European Commission's
Directorate General 'Regional
Policy';
(3)Component III, Regional Development, managed by the European Commission's
Directorate General 'Regional
Policy';
(4)Component IV, Human Resources Development, managed by the European Commission's
Directorate General 'Employment, Social Affairs
and Inclusion'; and
(5)Component V - Rural Development, managed by the European Commission's
Directorate General 'Agriculture
and Rural Development'.
The pre- and post-accession assistance was implemented through a variety of management modes which take into account different levels of preparedness of the beneficiary countries. The assistance under IPA was designed also to prepare the beneficiary countries to assume full responsibility for the management of financial assistance granted by the EU.
The eligibility for IPA components differs depending on the state of preparedness. In the use of funds the IPA beneficiary countries were divided into two categories. Croatia and the EU candidate countries: the Former Yugoslav Republic of FYROM, Serbia and Turkey; were eligible for all five components of IPA. While the new candidate countries, Albania and Montenegro (candidate status awarded in 2010), remained outside the scope of intervention of IPA Component III, the regional development. The Potential candidate countries in the Western Balkans (Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Montenegro and Kosovo) were eligible only for the first two components.
Implementation of Components I and II falls under the responsibility of DG 'Neighbourhood & Enlargement Negotiations', which initiated the components under a centralised management mode, with a view to transferring implementation management powers to the beneficiary countries as soon as their administrative capacities are considered sufficiently developed to ensure sound financial management. The EU Delegations play a major role in the delivery of IPA, in particular under the de-concentrated and decentralised management modes.
The implementation can be handled:
·directly by central management: funds are managed by DG 'Neighbourhood & Enlargement Negotiations' at headquarters;
·directly de-concentrated: funds are managed by EU Delegations under the supervision;
·directly centralised: cross-delegated when funds are managed by another service of the Commission through cross sub-delegation;
·indirectly in a centralised indirect management: funds are managed by executive agencies, specialised Community bodies (such as the European Investment Bank or the European Investment Fund) and national or international public-sector bodies or bodies governed by private law with a public-service mission;
·indirectly decentralised with ex ante control: funds are managed by accredited national authorities of the beneficiary country, but procurement is subject to ex ante control by the EC Delegation;
·decentralised without ex ante control: funds are managed by accredited national authorities of the beneficiary country and are not subject to ex ante controls by an EC Delegation;
·joint: funds are jointly managed with International Organisations (EBRD, EIB, Sigma, UN agencies, etc.)
5.3.The Instrument for Pre-accession 2014-20 – IPA II
Prepared in partnership with the beneficiaries, IPA II sets a new framework for providing pre-accession assistance for the period 2014-2020.
The most important novelty of IPA II is its strategic focus. Country Strategy Papers are the specific strategic planning documents made for each beneficiary for the 7-year period. These will provide for a stronger ownership by the beneficiaries through integrating their own reform and development agendas. A Multi-Country Strategy Paper will address priorities for regional cooperation or territorial cooperation.
IPA II targets reforms within the framework of pre-defined sectors. These sectors cover areas closely linked to the enlargement strategy, such as democracy and governance, rule of law or growth and competitiveness. This sector approach promotes structural reform that will help transform a given sector and bring it up to EU standards. It allows a move towards a more targeted assistance, ensuring efficiency, sustainability and focus on results.
IPA II also allows for a more systematic use of sector budget support. Finally, it gives more weight to performance measurement: indicators agreed with the beneficiaries will help assess to what extent the expected results have been achieved.
·The priorities outlined in the Strategy Papers are translated into detailed actions, which are included in annual or multi-annual Action Programmes. IPA II Action Programmes take the form of Financing Decisions adopted by the European Commission.
·The bulk of the assistance is channelled through the Country Action Programmes for IPA II Beneficiaries, which are the main vehicles for addressing country-specific needs in priority sectors as identified in the indicative Strategy Papers.
·Multi-Country Action Programmes aim at enhancing regional cooperation (in particular in the Western Balkans) and at adding value to the Country Action Programmes through other multi-beneficiary actions.
·Cross-Border Cooperation Programmes represent the focus of assistance in the area of territorial cooperation between IPA II beneficiaries, another important form of financial assistance.
Assistance for agriculture and rural development is also addressed via Rural Development Programmes.
IPA II funded activities are implemented and managed in various ways, in accordance with the Financial Regulation:
·Under direct management; i.e. the implementation of the budget is carried out directly by the European Commission until the relevant national authorities are accredited to manage the funds.
·Under indirect management; i.e. budget implementation tasks are delegated to and carried out by entities entrusted by the European Commission; they can be:
-the IPA II beneficiary or an entity designated by it (one of the main objectives of IPA II is to encourage beneficiaries to take ownership and responsibility for implementation; indirect management by the IPAII beneficiary is therefore expected to become the norm);
-an agency of a Member State or, exceptionally, of a third donor country;
-an international organisation; or
-an EU specialised (but not executive) agency.
In other words, the European Commission delegates the management of certain actions to external entities, while still retaining overall final responsibility for the general budget execution.
·Shared management; i.e. implementation tasks are delegated to EU member states (only for cross–border cooperation programmes with EU countries).
In the context of direct management, Sector Budget Support is yet another tool for delivering pre-accession assistance and achieving sustainable results under IPA II. It consists of financial transfers to the national treasury account of an IPA II beneficiary and requires performance assessment and capacity development, based on partnership and mutual accountability. It is delivered through Sector Reform Contracts.
Implementation of IPA II includes a comprehensive monitoring mechanism. It provides for a review of overall performance of the progress in achieving results at the strategic, sector and action levels (i.e. results-based performance), in addition to monitoring of financial execution. Performance measurement will be based on indicators set out in the indicative Strategy Papers and the Programmes.
Joint monitoring committees (European Commission and beneficiaries) will continue to monitor the implementation of financial assistance programmes, as was the case for the previous period of IPA.
The Commission publishes an annual report on pre-accession assistance. This report covers the previous budget year.
5.4.General analysis
5.4.1.Pre-accession assistance (PAA)
Regarding the Pre-Accession Assistance (PAA), the number of reported irregularities decreased further in 2017 compared to the previous year. The downward trend, which started in 2009, was confirmed during the last five years, as Table PA1 shows.
With the phasing out of the pre-accession programmes, for the second year in a row, the number of irregularities reported as fraudulent approached zero.
In the past five years, most of the irregularities, fraudulent and non-fraudulent (97% of the total) and the highest aggregate amount (99.7% of the total) were reported by Romania and Bulgaria. In relation to the distribution of irregularities according to funds, the highest numbers related to SAPARD (58%), while the highest amounts involved related to ISPA (50.5%) and SAPARD (42%). Irregularities concerning ISPA recorded the highest average financial amount involved, which was nearly four times the average related to SAPARD.
5.4.2.Instrument for Pre-Accession (IPA I)
Generally it can be said that the trend of IPA reporting (financial framework 2007-13) has begun to develop in a stable upward curve which means a continuous increase in the number of irregularities reported and involved amounts since 2014. The increasing trend can be considered within the norm as the reporting of irregularities of IPA has only begun in recent years.
Table PA2 details the underlining data and shows the evolution of reporting of all the irregularities (reported and not reported as fraudulent) since 2013. The number of irregularities reported as non fraudulent jumped to a new level in 2014 and then experienced limited fluctuations in the following years. The financial amounts involved did not mirror this trend. In 2017, they doubled with respect to 2016 and reached the peak since 2013. Similarly to what happened for the irregularities not reported as fraudulent, the number of irregularities reported as fraudulent shifted upwards, but in 2015. The financial amounts experienced fluctuations that did not follow changes in numbers. Nevertheless, in 2017, the highest financial amounts were recorded (since 2013).
During the last five years, the highest number of reported irregularities was communicated by Turkey, Bulgaria and Croatia. Most of the financial amounts (89%) were involved in irregularities reported by Turkey. The highest number of irregularities was recorded in relation to Cross-Border Cooperation (38% of the total number) and IPARD (33%). IPARD recorded by far the highest financial amounts (55% of the total).
5.5.Specific analysis – Financial year 2017
5.5.1.Pre-Accession Assistance (PAA)
In 2017, only one irregularity was reported as fraudulent by Romania, as shown in Table PA3. Turkey reported 4 irregularities as non fraudulent.
All cases reported as non fraudulent concerned the Pre-accession financial assistance for Turkey. The irregularity reported as fraudulent cases concerned PHARE.
5.5.2.Instrument for Pre-Accession (IPA)
In relation to IPA I (2007-13), there were 17 irregularities reported as fraudulent in 2017, for an overall financial impact of more than EUR 3 million. Tables PA5 and PA6 show, respectively, the breakdown per country and per component.
In 2017 Turkey was the country reporting the highest number of irregularities and the related financial amounts. Concerning the irregularities reported as fraudulent, 15 out of these 17 cases were notified by Turkey.
Rural Development programmes accounted for the highest number of cases (49%) and, even more, financial amounts involved (72%).
Concerning the modus operandi, the most frequent category of irregularity refers to 'public procurement' (not in combination with other categories) and most of these cases are not reported as fraudulent. When the focus move on the irregularities reported as fraudulent, the most frequent category is 'documentary proof': in all these cases, the 'false and/or falsified documents' type of violation is mentioned.
For the programming period 2014-2020, no specific analysis is presented, because only one case has been reported so far.
6. Direct Management
6.1. Introduction
This chapter contains a descriptive analysis of the data on recovery orders issued by Commission services in relation to expenditures managed under ‘direct management’ mode, which is one of the three implementation modes the Commission can use to implement the budget.
According to the Financial Regulation, ‘direct management’ means that the Commission implements the budget by its departments, including its staff in the Union Delegations under the authority of their respective Head of Delegation, or through executive agencies.
For financial year 2017, a total of EUR 19.65 billion has been effectively disbursed under the ‘direct management’ mode. Table DM1 presents the actual payments made in financial year 2017 for the twenty policy areas corresponding to 97.6% of the overall operational payments made under ‘direct management’.
Table DM1 – Payments made in financial year 2017 per policy area
6.2. General analysis
In 2017, for the twenty policy areas, the Commission services registered 1650 recovery items in ABAC that were qualified as irregularities for a total financial value EUR 71.48 million. Among these recovery items, 65 have been reported as fraudulent, involving EUR 7.33 million irregular amounts.
However, it has to be underlined that qualifications attributed to recovery items may change over the years: it may happen that cases of irregularities are turned to suspicions of fraud or the other way round, suspicions of fraud are reclassified as non-fraudulent irregularities upon the closure of the OLAF investigation. As a consequence, no direct conclusion can be drawn from the data with regard to the general trend of irregularities or fraud in this budget area.
6.2.1. Five year analysis 2013-2017
The below analysis gives an overview of recovery data recorded in the ABAC system in the last five years. From a purely statistical point of view, it can be said that between 2013 and 2017, the average number of recovery items qualified as ‘irregularities reported as fraudulent’ was 41. 2014 and 2017 are years where more such recovery items were registered with higher corresponding recovery amounts. The ratio between the amounts related to ‘irregularities reported as fraudulent’ and relative expenditure is very small, it remains close to zero (0.027%) in the given five year period. This ratio has been stable for many years now. Figures are presented in Table DM2 below.
Table DM2 – Irregularities reported as fraudulent and related amounts, financial years 2013-2017
With regard to ‘irregularities not reported as fraudulent’ the average number of recovery items registered per year is 1575. The figure for 2017 is exactly in line with this average, as it is demonstrated by table DM3 below.
Table DM3 – Irregularities not reported as fraudulent and related amounts, financial years 2013-2017
Between 2013 and 2017, there were all together 7875 registered recovery items qualified as ‘irregularities not reported as fraudulent’ with the aggregate recovery amount of EUR 396.02 million.
The ratio between the aggregate irregular amounts corresponding to the recovery items (classified as ‘irregularities not reported as fraudulent’ between 2013 and 2017) and the reference figure of the related expenditure is about half a percent (0.490%). This ratio has been stable for many years now.
All these figures have to be interpreted in positive terms; they demonstrate the efficiency of the irregularity detection and recovery mechanisms in place.
6.3. Specific analysis
6.3.1. Recoveries according policy areas
Table DM4 provides a picture of irregularity statistics with a breakdown of the twenty policy areas for year 2017.
Table DM4 – Irregularities reported by policy areas and related amounts, 2017
In the financial year 2017, the highest numbers of recovery items qualified as 'irregularities not reported as fraudulent' were recorded in the ‘Research and innovation’ budget area (487). It was also this policy field where the highest irregular amounts were registered (EUR 16.37 million). It was followed by ‘Communications networks, content and technology’ with the second highest number of recovery items (300) and related financial amount (EUR 15.32 million). These two policy areas account for almost half of the overall irregular recovery amounts for the year 2017 (49.40%). They are followed by the next policy areas: ‘Foreign Policy Instruments’ (EUR 5.23 million), ‘Mobility and transport’ (EUR 4.78 million) and ‘Humanitarian aid and civil protection’ (EUR 4.42 million). These three policy areas account for another 22.49% of the total irregular amounts recovered.
Regarding ‘irregularities reported as fraudulent’, there were 65 recovery items registered. Over the half of them concerned budget area ‘Communications networks, content and technology’ (38 items), followed by ‘Research and innovation’ (8 items), ‘Education and Culture’ (7 items) and budget areas.
The total relate irregular amounts were EUR 7.33 million, out of which policy area ‘Communications networks, content and technology’ alone counts for more than half (EUR 3.84 million).
The five year perspective of irregularities regarding the twenty policy fields is presented hereunder by table DM5.
Table DM5 – Irregularities reported by policy areas and related amounts, financial years 2013-2017
Over a five year period, it is also in ‘Communications networks, content and technology’ policy field, where the highest aggregate recovery amounts (EUR 11.88 million) were recorded in relation to ‘irregularities reported as fraudulent’ Representing more than half (55.15%) of the total amounts. It is followed by policy areas ‘Research and innovation’ (EUR 2.47 million), ‘International Cooperation and Development’ (EUR 1.79 million), and ‘Education and culture’ (EUR 1.69 million), yet with much smaller amounts.
Regarding ‘irregularities not reported as fraudulent’, the highest aggregate recovery amounts were recorded in the policy area of ‘Mobility and transport’ during the last five years (EUR 85.01 million). It is followed by ‘Research and innovation’ (EUR 77.64 million) and then by ‘Communications networks, content and technology’ (EUR 61.95 million) policy fields. These three policy areas account for about one third (32.27%) of the total recovery amounts related to ‘irregularities not reported as fraudulent’ over the past five years. Another one third (30.30%) of the aggregate recovery amounts were recorded in relation to policy fields ‘International Cooperation and Development’, ‘Energy’, ‘Foreign Policy Instruments’, ‘Education and culture’, and ‘Neighbourhood and enlargement negotiations’. However, compared to the overall payments made during the last five years for the twenty policy fields, the irregularity rate remains very low, on average 0.490%.
6.3.2. Recoveries according to legal entity residence
87.0% of the total number of recovery items and 88.7% if the corresponding recovery amounts qualified as ‘irregularities not reported as fraudulent’ concerned legal entities that are resident of the European Union. It should be noted however, that the residence of the legal entity is not necessarily the same as that of the main beneficiary. Nevertheless, in 84.3% of these irregularities and 86.5% of the corresponding amounts, the main beneficiary was also an EU Member State. In case of ‘irregularities reported as fraudulent’, these ratios are somewhat higher: 93.7% of the total number of recovery items and 95.2% if the corresponding recovery amounts concerned a legal entity residing in an EU country, and in 82.9% of these cases and 86.8% of the amounts concerned a final beneficiary that is also resident in an EU country.
Table DM6 – Recoveries per country of residence of the legal entity, 2013-2017
Table DM6 above summarises the total recoveries made in the past five years according to the country of the legal entity to which the payment was unduly disbursed.
6.3.3. Method of detection
For each recovery item, the Commission service issuing the recovery order has to indicate how the irregularity has been detected. Six different categories are pre-defined for this purpose, two of which fall under the direct responsibility of the European Commission: ‘Ex-ante controls’ and ‘Ex-post controls’. Table DM7 gives a breakdown of the recoveries by source of detection and by qualification in the last five years.
Table DM7 – Irregularities reported by source of detection and by qualification, 2013-2017
Regarding the ‘irregularities reported as fraudulent’, ‘OLAF’ has been marked as the source of detection in relation to 57.3% of recovery items corresponding to 67.3% of total recovery amounts. In 2017, 78.5% of such cases were detected by ‘OLAF’ together with 79.6% of related amounts. Meanwhile ‘Ex-post controls’ was the source of detection of another 34.5% of this type of recovery items corresponding to another 27.0% of recovery amounts.
The 82.3% of ‘irregularities not reported as fraudulent’ were detected through Commission controls. There is an increasing tendency over the past five years both in terms of number and of financial value of cases detected due to the effective ex-ante and ex-post controls. In 2017, 93.9% of these recovery items were detected by such controls involving 88.8% of the corresponding irregular amounts.
6.3.4. Types of irregularity
The Commission services also have to indicate the type of irregularity in the recovery context for the respective recovery item in question. Several types can be attributed to one recovery item. When it comes to ‘irregularities reported as fraudulent’ irregularity type ‘Amount ineligible’ appears the most frequently in the past five years, followed by types ‘Documents missing’. In relation to ‘irregularities not reported as fraudulent’, ‘Amount ineligible’ remains the most frequent irregularity type, followed by ‘Under-performance/Non-performance’ and then by ‘Documents missing’. Table DM8 provides the full picture regarding the frequency of occurrence of each type over the last five years.
Table DM8 – Types of irregularity, 2013-2017
The figures for irregularity type frequency are stable and have been providing the same pattern since many years.
6.3.5. Recovery
Once a recovery order is issued, the beneficiary is requested to pay back the amount unduly received or the amount is offset from remaining payments for the beneficiary.
For the recovery orders issued between 2013 and 2017, 63.26% of the total irregular amounts have already been recovered. This percentage is exactly the same as for period 2012-2016. Yet, there are differences between the recovery rates depending on the qualification. The recovery rate for ‘irregularities reported as fraudulent’ (34.49%) remains well below the one calculated for ‘irregularities not reported as fraudulent’ (64.82%).
COUNTRY FACTSHEETS
Belgium - Belgique/België
Bulgaria - България
Czech Republic - Česká republika
Estonia - Eesti
Ireland - Éire
Italy - Italia
Cyprus - Κύπρος
Latvia - Latvija
Lithuania - Lietuva
Luxembourg
Hungary - Magyarország
Netherlands - Nederland
Austria - Österreich
Romania - România
Slovenia - Slovenija
Slovakia - Slovensko
Finland – Suomi-Finland
Sweden - Sverige
United Kingdom
ANNEXES
ANNEX 1
|
TOR: Total number of fraudulent and non-fraudulent cases discovered with the related estimated and established amount
2013-2017
|
MS
|
2013
|
2014
|
2015
|
2016
|
2017
|
|
N
|
EUR
|
N
|
EUR
|
N
|
EUR
|
N
|
EUR
|
N
|
EUR
|
BE
|
185
|
43,514,517
|
147
|
19,048,837
|
253
|
15,426,401
|
211
|
14,911,126
|
215
|
30,081,729
|
BG
|
31
|
755,698
|
28
|
634,160
|
27
|
745,534
|
13
|
394,533
|
20
|
1,446,132
|
CZ
|
57
|
3,255,654
|
83
|
12,454,997
|
72
|
3,712,176
|
82
|
5,786,424
|
89
|
8,608,026
|
DK
|
42
|
2,324,093
|
71
|
5,347,533
|
91
|
7,573,936
|
79
|
12,284,300
|
56
|
2,126,831
|
DE
|
1,823
|
122,192,259
|
1,781
|
96,777,165
|
2,137
|
140,591,196
|
1,846
|
87,228,956
|
1,663
|
92,313,854
|
EE
|
4
|
1,439,374
|
8
|
249,167
|
9
|
247,557
|
9
|
1,303,483
|
5
|
322,079
|
IE
|
23
|
1,996,250
|
28
|
4,313,814
|
32
|
3,340,624
|
31
|
5,007,046
|
32
|
2,981,027
|
EL
|
35
|
3,817,406
|
48
|
12,188,688
|
57
|
16,692,582
|
45
|
16,460,513
|
41
|
14,406,341
|
ES
|
388
|
29,720,524
|
412
|
50,241,446
|
320
|
24,914,195
|
299
|
45,322,853
|
264
|
82,737,583
|
FR
|
371
|
25,443,927
|
426
|
47,940,541
|
381
|
28,859,558
|
346
|
49,727,823
|
298
|
29,799,654
|
HR
|
8
|
155,148
|
10
|
817,694
|
14
|
1,198,947
|
17
|
932,140
|
15
|
1,115,013
|
IT
|
274
|
27,583,812
|
155
|
62,331,127
|
152
|
13,938,373
|
112
|
26,078,708
|
139
|
13,060,243
|
CY
|
15
|
1,057,620
|
11
|
162,729
|
4
|
127,072
|
7
|
332,446
|
5
|
128,966
|
LV
|
20
|
1,043,657
|
27
|
1,838,210
|
30
|
1,995,004
|
30
|
3,844,246
|
10
|
454,553
|
LT
|
46
|
2,589,405
|
49
|
2,892,165
|
47
|
1,325,639
|
26
|
915,350
|
57
|
2,564,644
|
LU
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
HU
|
45
|
1,225,830
|
87
|
1,430,576
|
27
|
1,268,336
|
16
|
4,153,190
|
24
|
6,245,214
|
MT
|
4
|
444,171
|
4
|
1,466,945
|
5
|
623,612
|
2
|
320,682
|
2
|
366,319
|
NL
|
433
|
39,439,015
|
393
|
42,784,333
|
458
|
110,023,037
|
523
|
146,446,845
|
450
|
80,801,169
|
AT
|
63
|
2,598,048
|
81
|
6,389,271
|
74
|
3,783,656
|
61
|
15,338,503
|
56
|
7,393,410
|
PL
|
107
|
8,363,553
|
213
|
10,987,797
|
129
|
5,229,898
|
166
|
7,221,237
|
98
|
3,979,784
|
PT
|
31
|
1,869,964
|
58
|
3,652,681
|
22
|
3,764,190
|
17
|
6,609,241
|
34
|
5,176,908
|
RO
|
80
|
4,317,375
|
75
|
7,285,986
|
93
|
8,203,838
|
57
|
5,936,342
|
32
|
3,192,319
|
SI
|
13
|
382,986
|
19
|
1,201,576
|
12
|
446,511
|
1
|
25,222
|
12
|
479,319
|
SK
|
8
|
1,744,504
|
35
|
1,753,766
|
10
|
605,925
|
18
|
1,026,172
|
11
|
756,807
|
FI
|
43
|
2,505,185
|
35
|
1,446,295
|
38
|
1,739,021
|
40
|
2,385,846
|
31
|
2,030,595
|
SE
|
63
|
10,178,221
|
71
|
3,981,446
|
76
|
3,025,886
|
99
|
6,008,817
|
169
|
11,231,844
|
UK
|
1,179
|
74,796,898
|
1,197
|
68,793,009
|
971
|
44,174,275
|
835
|
80,784,102
|
808
|
97,843,317
|
Total
|
5,391
|
414,755,095
|
5,552
|
468,411,956
|
5,541
|
443,576,980
|
4,988
|
546,786,144
|
4,636
|
501,643,678
|
* Cut-off date 15/03/2018
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ANNEX 2
(The number of irregularities reported as fraudulent measures the results of efforts by Member States to counter fraud and other illegal activities affecting EU financial interests; it should not be interpreted as the level of fraud in their territories)
|
TOR: Total number of fraudulent cases discovered with the related estimated and established amount
2013-2017
|
MS
|
2013
|
2014
|
2015
|
2016
|
2017
|
|
N
|
EUR
|
N
|
EUR
|
N
|
EUR
|
N
|
EUR
|
N
|
EUR
|
BE
|
38
|
34,721,988
|
26
|
13,145,504
|
45
|
7,531,171
|
39
|
9,125,211
|
26
|
15,502,626
|
BG
|
17
|
324,233
|
24
|
497,380
|
23
|
648,683
|
11
|
342,383
|
19
|
1,192,724
|
CZ
|
3
|
28,934
|
0
|
0
|
2
|
47,637
|
2
|
149,590
|
0
|
0
|
DK
|
4
|
713,631
|
2
|
697,708
|
6
|
4,008,930
|
5
|
8,572,845
|
1
|
87,967
|
DE
|
194
|
12,993,773
|
143
|
14,977,797
|
159
|
29,196,567
|
113
|
5,384,323
|
46
|
6,586,501
|
EE
|
0
|
0
|
2
|
108,304
|
5
|
134,899
|
4
|
71,272
|
4
|
310,930
|
IE
|
4
|
519,759
|
4
|
2,249,080
|
8
|
1,544,668
|
3
|
445,574
|
1
|
33,992
|
EL
|
32
|
3,768,336
|
35
|
9,953,507
|
34
|
13,390,124
|
37
|
7,861,263
|
31
|
14,131,439
|
ES
|
144
|
13,489,895
|
121
|
33,845,262
|
75
|
4,956,829
|
50
|
3,292,251
|
34
|
3,911,652
|
FR
|
110
|
7,078,673
|
135
|
33,862,260
|
100
|
14,910,011
|
92
|
27,650,468
|
98
|
13,221,533
|
HR
|
5
|
98,849
|
8
|
684,206
|
5
|
439,189
|
5
|
342,135
|
8
|
852,915
|
IT
|
138
|
12,311,232
|
51
|
54,349,363
|
40
|
5,610,518
|
22
|
6,548,191
|
20
|
1,036,186
|
CY
|
1
|
76,603
|
2
|
22,192
|
3
|
112,709
|
7
|
332,446
|
4
|
118,402
|
LV
|
12
|
535,709
|
20
|
987,566
|
18
|
1,616,073
|
14
|
726,248
|
6
|
257,710
|
LT
|
24
|
2,117,232
|
14
|
712,907
|
17
|
559,196
|
10
|
266,102
|
38
|
1,538,484
|
LU
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
HU
|
5
|
89,524
|
8
|
187,146
|
5
|
182,050
|
2
|
87,456
|
4
|
335,228
|
MT
|
4
|
444,171
|
3
|
1,391,777
|
1
|
18,961
|
2
|
320,682
|
2
|
366,319
|
NL
|
19
|
951,905
|
7
|
414,169
|
2
|
612,146
|
9
|
515,657
|
8
|
2,800,617
|
AT
|
13
|
252,298
|
23
|
3,627,369
|
9
|
875,184
|
14
|
5,716,261
|
7
|
5,654,247
|
PL
|
17
|
2,548,821
|
37
|
3,554,948
|
59
|
1,813,650
|
92
|
3,082,818
|
52
|
2,526,634
|
PT
|
1
|
108,890
|
4
|
454,899
|
4
|
508,718
|
0
|
0
|
2
|
269,552
|
RO
|
15
|
276,363
|
14
|
438,369
|
21
|
1,060,519
|
16
|
2,872,456
|
9
|
413,780
|
SI
|
5
|
155,419
|
13
|
1,067,985
|
3
|
139,295
|
0
|
0
|
4
|
159,180
|
SK
|
0
|
0
|
3
|
256,714
|
3
|
117,282
|
3
|
707,196
|
0
|
0
|
FI
|
5
|
349,402
|
3
|
74,840
|
6
|
412,415
|
6
|
119,457
|
4
|
83,383
|
SE
|
1
|
11,745
|
3
|
224,113
|
0
|
0
|
2
|
96,496
|
4
|
4,527,821
|
UK
|
24
|
2,423,766
|
44
|
2,253,515
|
42
|
957,662
|
9
|
290,104
|
9
|
466,886
|
Total
|
835
|
96,391,150
|
749
|
180,038,882
|
695
|
91,405,085
|
569
|
84,918,886
|
441
|
76,386,708
|
* Cut-off date 15/03/2018
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ANNEX 3
|
TOR: Total number of non-fraudulent cases with the related estimated and established amount 2013-2017
|
MS
|
2013
|
2014
|
2015
|
2016
|
2017
|
|
N
|
EUR
|
N
|
EUR
|
N
|
EUR
|
N
|
EUR
|
N
|
EUR
|
BE
|
147
|
8,792,529
|
121
|
5,903,333
|
208
|
7,895,230
|
172
|
5,785,915
|
189
|
14,579,103
|
BG
|
14
|
431,465
|
4
|
136,779
|
4
|
96,851
|
2
|
52,150
|
1
|
253,408
|
CZ
|
54
|
3,226,721
|
83
|
12,454,997
|
70
|
3,664,539
|
80
|
5,636,834
|
89
|
8,608,026
|
DK
|
38
|
1,610,463
|
69
|
4,649,825
|
85
|
3,565,006
|
74
|
3,711,454
|
55
|
2,038,865
|
DE
|
1,629
|
109,198,487
|
1,638
|
81,799,368
|
1,978
|
111,394,629
|
1,733
|
81,844,633
|
1,617
|
85,727,353
|
EE
|
4
|
1,439,374
|
6
|
140,863
|
4
|
112,658
|
5
|
1,232,211
|
1
|
11,149
|
IE
|
19
|
1,476,491
|
24
|
2,064,734
|
24
|
1,795,956
|
28
|
4,561,472
|
31
|
2,947,035
|
EL
|
3
|
49,070
|
13
|
2,235,181
|
23
|
3,302,458
|
8
|
8,599,250
|
10
|
274,902
|
ES
|
244
|
16,230,629
|
291
|
16,396,184
|
245
|
19,957,366
|
249
|
42,030,602
|
230
|
78,825,931
|
FR
|
261
|
18,365,254
|
291
|
14,078,281
|
281
|
13,949,548
|
254
|
22,077,355
|
200
|
16,578,121
|
HR
|
3
|
56,300
|
2
|
133,487
|
9
|
759,758
|
12
|
590,005
|
7
|
262,098
|
IT
|
136
|
15,272,580
|
104
|
7,981,764
|
112
|
8,327,855
|
90
|
19,530,517
|
119
|
12,024,057
|
CY
|
14
|
981,017
|
9
|
140,537
|
1
|
14,363
|
0
|
0
|
1
|
10,564
|
LV
|
8
|
507,947
|
7
|
850,644
|
12
|
378,930
|
16
|
3,117,998
|
4
|
196,843
|
LT
|
22
|
472,172
|
35
|
2,179,258
|
30
|
766,443
|
16
|
649,248
|
19
|
1,026,160
|
LU
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
HU
|
40
|
1,136,306
|
79
|
1,243,430
|
22
|
1,086,286
|
14
|
4,065,734
|
20
|
5,909,986
|
MT
|
0
|
0
|
1
|
75,168
|
4
|
604,651
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
NL
|
414
|
38,487,110
|
386
|
42,370,164
|
456
|
109,410,891
|
514
|
145,931,188
|
442
|
78,000,552
|
AT
|
50
|
2,345,750
|
58
|
2,761,902
|
65
|
2,908,472
|
47
|
9,622,242
|
49
|
1,739,162
|
PL
|
90
|
5,814,733
|
176
|
7,432,850
|
70
|
3,416,248
|
74
|
4,138,419
|
46
|
1,453,150
|
PT
|
30
|
1,761,074
|
54
|
3,197,782
|
18
|
3,255,472
|
17
|
6,609,241
|
32
|
4,907,356
|
RO
|
65
|
4,041,013
|
61
|
6,847,617
|
72
|
7,143,319
|
41
|
3,063,886
|
23
|
2,778,540
|
SI
|
8
|
227,567
|
6
|
133,591
|
9
|
307,216
|
1
|
25,222
|
8
|
320,139
|
SK
|
8
|
1,744,504
|
32
|
1,497,052
|
7
|
488,643
|
15
|
318,976
|
11
|
756,807
|
FI
|
38
|
2,155,783
|
32
|
1,371,455
|
32
|
1,326,606
|
34
|
2,266,388
|
27
|
1,947,211
|
SE
|
62
|
10,166,477
|
68
|
3,757,332
|
76
|
3,025,886
|
97
|
5,912,321
|
165
|
6,704,023
|
UK
|
1,155
|
72,373,132
|
1,153
|
66,539,494
|
929
|
43,216,613
|
826
|
80,493,998
|
799
|
97,376,431
|
Total
|
4,556
|
318,363,945
|
4,803
|
288,373,074
|
4,846
|
352,171,895
|
4,419
|
461,867,259
|
4,195
|
425,256,970
|
* Cut-off date 15/03/2018
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ANNEX 4
|
TOR: Percentage of the financial impact of OWNRES cases to the collected and made avialable TOR (gross) in 2017 per Member State
|
MS
|
Gross amount TOR collected (A account)
|
All
|
Fraudulent
|
Non-fraudulent
|
|
|
OWNRES established and estimated amount
|
Percentage OWNRES/ gross TOR
|
OWNRES established and estimated amount
|
Percentage OWNRES/ gross TOR
|
OWNRES established and estimated amount
|
Percentage OWNRES/ gross TOR
|
|
EUR
|
EUR
|
%
|
EUR
|
%
|
EUR
|
%
|
BE
|
2,642,810,592
|
30,081,729
|
1.14%
|
15,502,626
|
0.59%
|
14,579,103
|
0.55%
|
BG
|
95,238,227
|
1,446,132
|
1.52%
|
1,192,724
|
1.25%
|
253,408
|
0.27%
|
CZ
|
333,241,578
|
8,608,026
|
2.58%
|
0
|
0.00%
|
8,608,026
|
2.58%
|
DK
|
427,926,351
|
2,126,831
|
0.50%
|
87,967
|
0.02%
|
2,038,865
|
0.48%
|
DE
|
5,119,343,332
|
92,313,854
|
1.80%
|
6,586,501
|
0.13%
|
85,727,353
|
1.67%
|
EE
|
37,790,795
|
322,079
|
0.85%
|
310,930
|
0.82%
|
11,149
|
0.03%
|
IE
|
356,191,726
|
2,981,027
|
0.84%
|
33,992
|
0.01%
|
2,947,035
|
0.83%
|
EL
|
200,946,597
|
14,406,341
|
7.17%
|
14,131,439
|
7.03%
|
274,902
|
0.14%
|
ES
|
1,919,674,463
|
82,737,583
|
4.31%
|
3,911,652
|
0.20%
|
78,825,931
|
4.11%
|
FR
|
2,086,197,134
|
29,799,654
|
1.43%
|
13,221,533
|
0.63%
|
16,578,121
|
0.79%
|
HR
|
56,985,534
|
1,115,013
|
1.96%
|
852,915
|
1.50%
|
262,098
|
0.46%
|
IT
|
2,299,903,491
|
13,060,243
|
0.57%
|
1,036,186
|
0.05%
|
12,024,057
|
0.52%
|
CY
|
26,951,991
|
128,966
|
0.48%
|
118,402
|
0.44%
|
10,564
|
0.04%
|
LV
|
42,996,411
|
454,553
|
1.06%
|
257,710
|
0.60%
|
196,843
|
0.46%
|
LT
|
100,345,725
|
2,564,644
|
2.56%
|
1,538,484
|
1.53%
|
1,026,160
|
1.02%
|
LU
|
27,059,197
|
-
|
0.00%
|
0
|
0.00%
|
0
|
0.00%
|
HU
|
186,208,364
|
6,245,214
|
3.35%
|
335,228
|
0.18%
|
5,909,986
|
3.17%
|
MT
|
14,732,034
|
366,319
|
2.49%
|
366,319
|
2.49%
|
0
|
0.00%
|
NL
|
3,080,613,150
|
80,801,169
|
2.62%
|
2,800,617
|
0.09%
|
78,000,552
|
2.53%
|
AT
|
275,460,523
|
7,393,410
|
2.68%
|
5,654,247
|
2.05%
|
1,739,162
|
0.63%
|
PL
|
834,600,505
|
3,979,784
|
0.48%
|
2,526,634
|
0.30%
|
1,453,150
|
0.17%
|
PT
|
195,524,104
|
5,176,908
|
2.65%
|
269,552
|
0.14%
|
4,907,356
|
2.51%
|
RO
|
202,876,304
|
3,192,319
|
1.57%
|
413,780
|
0.20%
|
2,778,540
|
1.37%
|
SI
|
82,957,351
|
479,319
|
0.58%
|
159,180
|
0.19%
|
320,139
|
0.39%
|
SK
|
116,740,888
|
756,807
|
0.65%
|
0
|
0.00%
|
756,807
|
0.65%
|
FI
|
175,009,470
|
2,030,595
|
1.16%
|
83,383
|
0.05%
|
1,947,211
|
1.11%
|
SE
|
657,846,831
|
11,231,844
|
1.71%
|
4,527,821
|
0.69%
|
6,704,023
|
1.02%
|
UK
|
3,977,651,281
|
97,843,317
|
2.46%
|
466,886
|
0.01%
|
97,376,431
|
2.45%
|
Total
|
25,573,823,950
|
501,643,678
|
1.96%
|
76,386,708
|
0.30%
|
425,256,970
|
1.66%
|
ANNEX 5
|
TOR: Recovery rates (RR) per cut-off date
|
MS
|
2016
|
2017
|
|
Established amount
|
Recovered amount
|
RR
|
Established amount
|
Recovered amount
|
RR
|
|
EUR
|
EUR
|
%
|
EUR
|
EUR
|
%
|
|
1
|
2
|
3=2/1
|
1
|
2
|
3=2/1
|
BE
|
11,690,990
|
8,743,794
|
75 %
|
21,860,395
|
9,677,518
|
44 %
|
BG
|
223,637
|
75,292
|
34 %
|
1,446,132
|
266,161
|
18 %
|
CZ
|
5,786,424
|
5,281,040
|
91 %
|
8,608,026
|
4,471,221
|
52 %
|
DK
|
12,284,300
|
2,557,390
|
21 %
|
2,126,831
|
1,089,269
|
51 %
|
DE
|
87,164,748
|
82,589,089
|
95 %
|
92,313,854
|
75,947,768
|
82 %
|
EE
|
1,303,483
|
1,243,230
|
95 %
|
322,079
|
11,149
|
3 %
|
IE
|
4,561,472
|
3,024,469
|
66 %
|
2,947,035
|
2,854,964
|
97 %
|
EL
|
8,951,578
|
80,765
|
1 %
|
8,354,806
|
171,085
|
2 %
|
ES
|
44,003,652
|
17,915,283
|
41 %
|
81,095,666
|
13,177,747
|
16 %
|
FR
|
48,220,508
|
14,750,357
|
31 %
|
28,737,885
|
11,029,322
|
38 %
|
HR
|
932,140
|
647,661
|
69 %
|
1,115,013
|
313,388
|
28 %
|
IT
|
25,970,041
|
5,233,741
|
20 %
|
13,060,243
|
2,356,101
|
18 %
|
CY
|
332,446
|
59,925
|
18 %
|
128,966
|
43,302
|
34 %
|
LV
|
3,844,246
|
2,184,372
|
57 %
|
454,553
|
51,897
|
11 %
|
LT
|
915,350
|
209,672
|
23 %
|
2,564,644
|
420,882
|
16 %
|
LU
|
0
|
0
|
0 %
|
0
|
0
|
0 %
|
HU
|
4,153,190
|
732,401
|
18 %
|
6,245,214
|
5,438,997
|
87 %
|
MT
|
320,682
|
0
|
0 %
|
366,319
|
0
|
0 %
|
NL
|
146,405,137
|
28,903,369
|
20 %
|
79,476,057
|
23,287,286
|
29 %
|
AT
|
15,338,503
|
10,908,011
|
71 %
|
7,393,410
|
6,129,567
|
83 %
|
PL
|
7,221,237
|
2,373,329
|
33 %
|
3,979,784
|
1,159,858
|
29 %
|
PT
|
6,609,241
|
398,304
|
6 %
|
4,907,356
|
2,480,072
|
51 %
|
RO
|
5,936,342
|
2,176,296
|
37 %
|
3,192,319
|
1,149,219
|
36 %
|
SI
|
25,222
|
25,222
|
100 %
|
479,319
|
479,319
|
100 %
|
SK
|
1,026,172
|
1,026,172
|
100 %
|
756,807
|
740,332
|
98 %
|
FI
|
2,358,198
|
1,761,269
|
75 %
|
2,030,595
|
1,790,778
|
88 %
|
SE
|
5,912,321
|
5,882,596
|
99 %
|
11,204,873
|
7,764,408
|
69 %
|
UK
|
80,511,319
|
34,131,035
|
42 %
|
97,178,368
|
54,856,413
|
56 %
|
Total
|
532,002,577
|
232,914,085
|
44 %
|
482,346,547
|
227,158,024
|
47 %
|
* Cut-off date 15/03/2018
|
|
|
|
|
|
ANNEX 6
TOR: Estimated and established amount per customs procedure per Member State 2017
|
MS
|
Fraudulent
|
Non-fraudulent
|
|
Release for free circulation
|
Transit
|
Customs warehousing
|
Inward processing
|
Other
|
Release for free circulation
|
Transit
|
Customs warehousing
|
Inward processing
|
Other
|
BE
|
7,027,149
|
8,284,488
|
55,551
|
|
135,437
|
7,079,590
|
519,790
|
4,767,935
|
2,116,285
|
95,503
|
BG
|
203,948
|
988,776
|
|
|
|
253,408
|
|
|
|
|
CZ
|
|
|
|
|
|
8,534,780
|
|
|
73,246
|
|
DK
|
87,967
|
|
|
|
|
1,805,146
|
75,882
|
119,679
|
26,238
|
11,920
|
DE
|
6,517,556
|
|
|
|
68,945
|
66,210,863
|
746,739
|
2,489,329
|
15,439,841
|
840,582
|
EE
|
|
|
|
|
310,930
|
11,149
|
|
|
|
|
IE
|
|
|
|
|
33,992
|
1,958,781
|
|
|
50,200
|
938,054
|
EL
|
9,504,163
|
104,010
|
|
|
4,523,266
|
172,769
|
|
49,259
|
52,874
|
|
ES
|
3,911,652
|
|
|
|
|
75,480,870
|
31,315
|
90,055
|
3,203,824
|
19,867
|
FR
|
10,746,805
|
|
959,622
|
304,071
|
1,211,035
|
15,463,027
|
12,430
|
300,525
|
236,467
|
565,672
|
HR
|
262,090
|
563,852
|
|
|
26,973
|
262,098
|
|
|
|
|
IT
|
1,024,993
|
11,193
|
|
|
|
7,221,736
|
|
|
25,733
|
4,776,588
|
CY
|
118,402
|
|
|
|
|
10,564
|
|
|
|
|
LV
|
242,464
|
|
|
15,246
|
|
196,843
|
|
|
|
|
LT
|
56,244
|
|
|
|
1,482,240
|
480,527
|
539,135
|
|
|
6,498
|
LU
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
HU
|
49,438
|
285,790
|
|
|
|
5,909,986
|
|
|
|
|
MT
|
|
|
|
|
366,319
|
|
|
|
|
|
NL
|
2,717,304
|
|
18,702
|
64,611
|
|
65,852,347
|
337,079
|
7,760,477
|
3,972,656
|
77,993
|
AT
|
936,442
|
4,717,805
|
|
|
|
1,692,793
|
|
|
18,792
|
27,578
|
PL
|
2,063,187
|
431,388
|
|
|
32,059
|
1,434,838
|
18,312
|
|
|
|
PT
|
269,552
|
|
|
|
|
4,733,067
|
|
174,288
|
|
|
RO
|
370,293
|
|
|
|
43,487
|
2,664,662
|
|
|
50,909
|
62,969
|
SI
|
159,180
|
|
|
|
|
320,139
|
|
|
|
|
SK
|
|
|
|
|
|
756,807
|
|
|
|
|
FI
|
83,383
|
|
|
|
|
1,679,485
|
13,608
|
72,280
|
181,838
|
|
SE
|
4,527,821
|
|
|
|
|
6,403,382
|
86,974
|
|
116,451
|
97,216
|
UK
|
466,886
|
|
|
|
|
77,427,455
|
55,379
|
|
19,881,253
|
12,344
|
Total
|
51,346,919
|
15,387,301
|
1,033,875
|
383,928
|
8,234,684
|
354,017,112
|
2,436,643
|
15,823,826
|
45,446,607
|
7,532,783
|
ANNEX 7
|
TOR: Method of detection by number of cases per Member State 2017
|
MS
|
N
|
Fraudulent
|
Non-fraudulent
|
|
|
All
|
Release controls
|
Post-release controls
|
Inspections by anti-fraud services
|
Tax audit
|
Voluntary admission
|
Other
|
All
|
Release
controls
|
Post-release controls
|
Inspections by anti-fraud services
|
Tax audit
|
Voluntary admission
|
Other
|
BE
|
215
|
26
|
|
|
26
|
|
|
|
189
|
51
|
100
|
26
|
3
|
2
|
7
|
BG
|
20
|
19
|
|
2
|
17
|
|
|
|
1
|
1
|
|
|
|
|
|
CZ
|
89
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
89
|
3
|
64
|
|
|
22
|
|
DK
|
56
|
1
|
|
1
|
|
|
|
|
55
|
6
|
42
|
|
|
4
|
3
|
DE
|
1,663
|
46
|
4
|
10
|
30
|
|
|
2
|
1,617
|
100
|
888
|
12
|
262
|
309
|
46
|
EE
|
5
|
4
|
4
|
|
|
|
|
|
1
|
|
1
|
|
|
|
|
IE
|
32
|
1
|
|
|
1
|
|
|
|
31
|
1
|
2
|
2
|
19
|
3
|
4
|
EL
|
41
|
31
|
19
|
1
|
4
|
|
|
7
|
10
|
|
2
|
8
|
|
|
|
ES
|
264
|
34
|
3
|
2
|
25
|
3
|
|
1
|
230
|
68
|
42
|
22
|
63
|
32
|
3
|
FR
|
298
|
98
|
34
|
41
|
23
|
|
|
|
200
|
41
|
67
|
67
|
|
24
|
1
|
HR
|
15
|
8
|
6
|
2
|
|
|
|
|
7
|
1
|
4
|
2
|
|
|
|
IT
|
139
|
20
|
|
5
|
11
|
|
|
4
|
119
|
30
|
60
|
18
|
|
10
|
1
|
CY
|
5
|
4
|
1
|
|
2
|
|
|
1
|
1
|
|
1
|
|
|
|
|
LV
|
10
|
6
|
5
|
|
1
|
|
|
|
4
|
|
3
|
|
1
|
|
|
LT
|
57
|
38
|
|
3
|
35
|
|
|
|
19
|
1
|
15
|
3
|
|
|
|
LU
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
HU
|
24
|
4
|
1
|
3
|
|
|
|
|
20
|
4
|
14
|
2
|
|
|
|
MT
|
2
|
2
|
2
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
NL
|
450
|
8
|
|
7
|
|
|
1
|
|
442
|
122
|
287
|
1
|
|
32
|
|
AT
|
56
|
7
|
|
3
|
2
|
|
|
2
|
49
|
4
|
34
|
1
|
|
5
|
5
|
PL
|
98
|
52
|
8
|
41
|
|
|
|
3
|
46
|
6
|
32
|
8
|
|
|
|
PT
|
34
|
2
|
2
|
|
|
|
|
|
32
|
2
|
7
|
22
|
|
|
1
|
RO
|
32
|
9
|
|
|
9
|
|
|
|
23
|
|
|
23
|
|
|
|
SI
|
12
|
4
|
|
|
4
|
|
|
|
8
|
5
|
2
|
1
|
|
|
|
SK
|
11
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
11
|
|
4
|
1
|
|
6
|
|
FI
|
31
|
4
|
3
|
|
1
|
|
|
|
27
|
12
|
7
|
|
|
8
|
|
SE
|
169
|
4
|
2
|
2
|
|
|
|
|
165
|
3
|
112
|
1
|
|
49
|
|
UK
|
808
|
9
|
9
|
|
|
|
|
|
799
|
1
|
517
|
|
|
281
|
|
Total
|
4,636
|
441
|
103
|
123
|
191
|
3
|
1
|
20
|
4,195
|
462
|
2,307
|
220
|
348
|
787
|
71
|
ANNEX 8
|
TOR: Method of detection by established and estimated amounts per Member state 2017
|
MS
|
N
|
Fraudulent
|
Non-fraudulent
|
|
|
All
|
Release controls
|
Post-release controls
|
Inspections by anti-fraud services
|
Tax audit
|
Voluntary admission
|
Other
|
All
|
Release controls
|
Post-release controls
|
Inspections by anti-fraud services
|
Tax audit
|
Voluntary admission
|
Other
|
BE
|
30,081,729
|
15,502,626
|
|
|
15,502,626
|
|
|
|
14,579,103
|
5,951,308
|
4,109,142
|
4,297,015
|
38,796
|
54,002
|
128,841
|
BG
|
1,446,132
|
1,192,724
|
|
23,458
|
1,169,267
|
|
|
|
253,408
|
253,408
|
|
|
|
|
|
CZ
|
8,608,026
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
8,608,026
|
56,059
|
7,347,675
|
|
|
1,204,291
|
|
DK
|
2,126,831
|
87,967
|
|
87,967
|
|
|
|
|
2,038,865
|
289,625
|
1,407,685
|
|
|
205,360
|
136,195
|
DE
|
92,313,854
|
6,586,501
|
158,584
|
2,712,336
|
3,589,306
|
|
|
126,275
|
85,727,353
|
3,488,538
|
45,599,244
|
504,481
|
11,734,929
|
21,600,931
|
2,799,230
|
EE
|
322,079
|
310,930
|
310,930
|
|
|
|
|
|
11,149
|
|
11,149
|
|
|
|
|
IE
|
2,981,027
|
33,992
|
|
|
33,992
|
|
|
|
2,947,035
|
37,504
|
45,400
|
82,465
|
2,135,661
|
176,828
|
469,177
|
EL
|
14,406,341
|
14,131,439
|
4,788,730
|
12,458
|
8,065,264
|
|
|
1,264,986
|
274,902
|
|
102,133
|
172,769
|
|
|
|
ES
|
82,737,583
|
3,911,652
|
795,354
|
52,488
|
2,583,488
|
462,095
|
|
18,227
|
78,825,931
|
5,447,858
|
2,325,301
|
39,828,912
|
29,419,723
|
1,625,950
|
178,187
|
FR
|
29,799,654
|
13,221,533
|
1,608,405
|
5,959,398
|
5,653,730
|
|
|
|
16,578,121
|
1,094,114
|
3,466,124
|
10,840,739
|
|
1,022,288
|
154,856
|
HR
|
1,115,013
|
852,915
|
749,188
|
103,727
|
|
|
|
|
262,098
|
11,653
|
222,250
|
28,194
|
|
|
|
IT
|
13,060,243
|
1,036,186
|
|
270,857
|
671,902
|
|
|
93,427
|
12,024,057
|
6,493,010
|
4,390,583
|
733,136
|
|
382,744
|
24,583
|
CY
|
128,966
|
118,402
|
10,294
|
|
85,663
|
|
|
22,445
|
10,564
|
|
10,564
|
|
|
|
|
LV
|
454,553
|
257,710
|
246,038
|
|
11,672
|
|
|
|
196,843
|
|
51,897
|
|
144,946
|
|
|
LT
|
2,564,644
|
1,538,484
|
|
56,244
|
1,482,240
|
|
|
|
1,026,160
|
26,339
|
976,204
|
23,617
|
|
|
|
LU
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
HU
|
6,245,214
|
335,228
|
24,514
|
310,714
|
|
|
|
|
5,909,986
|
387,667
|
5,457,940
|
64,378
|
|
|
|
MT
|
366,319
|
366,319
|
366,319
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
NL
|
80,801,169
|
2,800,617
|
|
2,783,534
|
|
|
17,083
|
|
78,000,552
|
9,493,752
|
66,999,479
|
18,358
|
|
1,488,963
|
|
AT
|
7,393,410
|
5,654,247
|
|
4,768,666
|
140,113
|
|
|
745,468
|
1,739,162
|
101,303
|
1,304,555
|
55,802
|
|
71,286
|
206,216
|
PL
|
3,979,784
|
2,526,634
|
543,759
|
1,732,194
|
|
|
|
250,681
|
1,453,150
|
118,824
|
822,831
|
511,496
|
|
|
|
PT
|
5,176,908
|
269,552
|
269,552
|
|
|
|
|
|
4,907,356
|
23,336
|
581,412
|
4,272,317
|
|
|
30,291
|
RO
|
3,192,319
|
413,780
|
|
|
413,780
|
|
|
|
2,778,540
|
|
|
2,778,540
|
|
|
|
SI
|
479,319
|
159,180
|
|
|
159,180
|
|
|
|
320,139
|
228,732
|
79,028
|
12,380
|
|
|
|
SK
|
756,807
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
756,807
|
|
38,241
|
10,402
|
|
708,164
|
|
FI
|
2,030,595
|
83,383
|
53,375
|
|
30,008
|
|
|
|
1,947,211
|
1,004,939
|
718,709
|
|
|
223,562
|
|
SE
|
11,231,844
|
4,527,821
|
26,971
|
4,500,850
|
|
|
|
|
6,704,023
|
72,301
|
5,174,911
|
51,002
|
|
1,405,809
|
|
UK
|
97,843,317
|
466,886
|
466,886
|
|
|
|
|
|
97,376,431
|
219,053
|
68,960,222
|
|
|
28,197,156
|
|
Total
|
501,643,678
|
76,386,708
|
10,418,899
|
23,374,890
|
39,592,231
|
462,095
|
17,083
|
2,521,509
|
425,256,970
|
34,799,324
|
220,202,679
|
64,286,002
|
43,474,055
|
58,367,335
|
4,127,576
|
ANNEX 9
|
TOR: Recovery rates (RR) per Member State 2017
|
MS
|
Fraudulent
|
Non-fraudulent
|
|
Established amount, EUR
|
Recovered amount, EUR
|
RR %
|
Established amount, EUR
|
Recovered amount, EUR
|
RR %
|
BE
|
7,281,291
|
860,529
|
12%
|
14,579,103
|
8,816,990
|
60%
|
BG
|
1,192,724
|
12,753
|
1%
|
253,408
|
253,408
|
100%
|
CZ
|
0
|
0
|
0%
|
8,608,026
|
4,471,221
|
52%
|
DK
|
87,967
|
0
|
0%
|
2,038,865
|
1,089,269
|
53%
|
DE
|
6,586,501
|
2,595,835
|
39%
|
85,727,353
|
73,351,934
|
86%
|
EE
|
310,930
|
0
|
0%
|
11,149
|
11,149
|
100%
|
IE
|
0
|
0
|
0%
|
2,947,035
|
2,854,964
|
97%
|
EL
|
8,079,904
|
4,814
|
0%
|
274,902
|
166,271
|
60%
|
ES
|
2,269,735
|
1,234,287
|
54%
|
78,825,931
|
11,943,460
|
15%
|
FR
|
12,159,764
|
3,680,509
|
30%
|
16,578,121
|
7,348,813
|
44%
|
HR
|
852,915
|
173,224
|
20%
|
262,098
|
140,164
|
53%
|
IT
|
1,036,186
|
44,796
|
4%
|
12,024,057
|
2,311,305
|
19%
|
CY
|
118,402
|
32,739
|
28%
|
10,564
|
10,564
|
100%
|
LV
|
257,710
|
0
|
0%
|
196,843
|
51,897
|
26%
|
LT
|
1,538,484
|
45,196
|
3%
|
1,026,160
|
375,686
|
37%
|
LU
|
0
|
0
|
0%
|
0
|
-
|
0%
|
HU
|
335,228
|
24,924
|
7%
|
5,909,986
|
5,414,073
|
92%
|
MT
|
366,319
|
0
|
0%
|
0
|
-
|
0%
|
NL
|
2,800,617
|
100,625
|
4%
|
76,675,440
|
23,186,661
|
30%
|
AT
|
5,654,247
|
4,759,310
|
84%
|
1,739,162
|
1,370,257
|
79%
|
PL
|
2,526,634
|
60,806
|
2%
|
1,453,150
|
1,099,053
|
76%
|
PT
|
0
|
0
|
0%
|
4,907,356
|
2,480,072
|
51%
|
RO
|
413,780
|
21,827
|
5%
|
2,778,540
|
1,127,392
|
41%
|
SI
|
159,180
|
159,180
|
100%
|
320,139
|
320,139
|
100%
|
SK
|
0
|
0
|
0%
|
756,807
|
740,332
|
98%
|
FI
|
83,383
|
208
|
0%
|
1,947,211
|
1,790,570
|
92%
|
SE
|
4,500,850
|
1,189,776
|
26%
|
6,704,023
|
6,574,632
|
98%
|
UK
|
20,990
|
0
|
0%
|
97,157,378
|
54,856,413
|
56%
|
TOTAL
|
58,633,742
|
15,001,337
|
26%
|
423,712,805
|
212,156,687
|
50%
|
* Cut-off date 15/03/2018
|
|
|
|
|
|
ANNEX 10
|
TOR: Examination of write-off cases in 2017
|
MS
|
Acceptance
|
Reference to Article 17.2 rejected
|
Additional information request (AI)
|
Not appropriate
|
Total cases*
|
Cases assessed twice (AI)
|
Total (amounts not counted twice)
|
|
N
|
EUR
|
N
|
EUR
|
N
|
EUR
|
N
|
EUR
|
N
|
N
|
EUR
|
BE
|
|
|
2
|
143,560
|
1
|
2,051,956
|
|
|
3
|
|
2,195,516
|
CZ
|
|
|
|
|
2
|
117,881
|
|
|
2
|
2
|
117,881
|
DK
|
|
|
|
|
1
|
159,996
|
|
|
1
|
|
159,996
|
DE
|
18
|
2,099,288
|
18
|
3,645,632
|
54
|
23,885,222
|
1
|
126,911
|
91
|
19
|
29,757,053
|
EL
|
1
|
208,697
|
2
|
351,148
|
1
|
301,349
|
1
|
336,679
|
5
|
1
|
1,197,873
|
ES
|
|
|
1
|
254,250
|
10
|
4,732,607
|
|
|
11
|
|
4,986,857
|
FR
|
1
|
100,313
|
1
|
163,425
|
1
|
98,875
|
|
|
3
|
|
362,613
|
IT
|
4
|
2,241,354
|
1
|
497,280
|
13
|
12,919,572
|
|
|
18
|
4
|
15,658,206
|
CY
|
|
|
|
|
1
|
240,966
|
|
|
1
|
|
240,966
|
LV
|
1
|
343,827
|
1
|
768,691
|
3
|
446,025
|
|
|
5
|
1
|
1,558,543
|
LT
|
2
|
345,006
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2
|
|
345,006
|
HU
|
1
|
93,605
|
2
|
180,278
|
2
|
3,942,477
|
|
|
5
|
2
|
4,216,361
|
AT
|
6
|
5,687,056
|
2
|
2,030,647
|
2
|
814,435
|
|
28,256
|
10
|
3
|
8,560,394
|
PL
|
|
|
1
|
85,772
|
3
|
1,131,533
|
|
|
4
|
1
|
1,217,306
|
PT
|
|
|
|
|
1
|
123,541
|
|
|
1
|
|
123,541
|
SI
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
-
|
|
-
|
SK
|
1
|
64,387
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1
|
|
64,387
|
FI
|
|
|
|
|
2
|
327,113
|
|
|
2
|
|
327,113
|
SE
|
|
|
1
|
117,359
|
|
|
|
|
1
|
|
117,359
|
UK
|
1
|
59,703
|
2
|
2,320,852
|
|
|
|
|
3
|
|
2,380,554
|
Total
|
36
|
11,243,237
|
34
|
10,558,894
|
97
|
51,293,550
|
2
|
491,847
|
169
|
33
|
73,587,527
|
* It does not include the number of Additional Information´s cases assessed twice.
|
|
|
|
|
ANNEX 11
Classification of cases in relation to CAP expenditure
The analysis of irregularities in Section 3 'Common Agricultural Policy' separately focuses on 'rural development' (RD) and direct 'support to agriculture' (SA).
To this purpose, cases are classified as:
·RD, where they concern only expenditure on budget lines/posts that contain the codes '0504', 'B01-4' or 'B01-50'.
·SA, where they do not concern rural development expenditure. SA includes expenditure in relation to intervention in agricultural markets and direct payments to farmers;
·'SA/RD', where they concern both types of expenditure (rural development and direct support to agricultural) or there is no enough information to assign the case to RD or SA.
Some parts of the analysis in Section 3 'Common Agricultural Policy' separately focus on ' Interventions in agricultural markets' (or 'Market measures') and 'Direct payments'.
In fact, as from 2006, support to agriculture is structured along 2 main chapters:
·Chapter 0502 'Interventions in agricultural markets';
·Chapter 0503 'Direct aids'.
To the purpose of the analysis in Section 3 'Common Agricultural Policy', cases are classified:
·'Market measures', where they concern expenditure on Budget lines/posts which contain the code '502', as from the 2006 EU Budget (the same case may concern also other areas, including rural development or direct payments);
·'Direct payments', where they concern expenditure on Budget lines/posts which contain the code '503', as from the 2006 EU Budget (the same case may concern also other areas, including rural development or market measures).
Cases concerning only expenditure in 2005 or before are not considered 'Market measures' or 'direct payments'. Before 2006, the EU Budget had a different structure:
·In 2004 and 2005, the chapters 0502 and 0503 referred respectively to 'Plant products' and 'Animal products';
·Before 2004, subsection B01 covered the Guarantee section of the EAGG fund and was split, among others, in:
oB01-1 'Plant products';
oB01-2 'Animal products'.
ANNEX 12
Categories of irregularities and related types
Tables NR9-NR12
The categories used in Tables NR9-NR12 are as follows:
Code
|
Category
|
Type
|
T11
|
Request
|
T11/00: Incorrect or incomplete request for aid
|
|
|
T11/01: False or falsified request for aid
|
|
|
T11/02:Product, species, project and/or activity not eligible for aid
|
|
|
T11/03: Incompatible cumulation of aid
|
|
|
T11/04: Several requests for the same product, species, project and/or activity
|
|
|
T11/99: Other
|
T12
|
Beneficiary
|
T12/00: Incorrect identity operator/beneficiary
|
|
|
T12/01: Non-existent operator/beneficiary
|
|
|
T12/02: Misdescription of the holding
|
|
|
T12/03: Operator/beneficiary not having the required quality
|
|
|
T12/99: Other
|
T13
|
Accounts and records
|
T13/00: Incomplete accounts
|
|
|
T13/01: Incorrect accounts
|
|
|
T13/02: Falsified accounts
|
|
|
T13/03: Accounts not presented
|
|
|
T13/04: Absence of accounts
|
|
|
T13/05: Calculation errors
|
|
|
T13/06: Revenues not declared
|
|
|
T13/99: Other
|
T14
|
Documentary proof
|
T14/00: Documents missing and/or not provided
|
|
|
T14/01: Documents incomplete
|
|
|
T14/02: Documents incorrect
|
|
|
T14/03: Documents provided too late
|
|
|
T14/04: Documents false and/or falsified
|
|
|
T14/99: Other
|
T15
|
Product, species and/or land
|
T15/00: Over or under production
|
|
|
T15/01: Inexact composition
|
|
|
T15/02: Inexact origin
|
|
|
T15/03: Inaccurate value
|
|
|
T15/04: Inexact quantity
|
|
|
T15/05: Variation in quality or content
|
|
|
T15/06: Quantities outside permitted limits, quotas, thresholds
|
|
|
T15/07: Unauthorised substitution or exchange
|
|
|
T15/08: Unauthorised addition or mixture
|
|
|
T15/09: Unauthorised use
|
|
|
T15/10: Falsification of the product
|
|
|
T15/11: Incorrect storage or handling
|
|
|
T15/12: Fictitious use or processing
|
|
|
T15/13: Incorrect classification (incl. incorrect tariff heading)
|
|
|
T15/14: Overdeclaration and/or declaration of ficticious product, species and/or land
|
|
|
T15/99: Other
|
T16
|
(Non-)action
|
T16/00: Action not implemented
|
|
|
T16/01: Action not completed
|
|
|
T16/02: Operation prohibited during the measure
|
|
|
T16/03: Failure to respect deadlines
|
|
|
T16/04: Irregular termination, sale or reduction
|
|
|
T16/05: Absence of identification, marking, etc.
|
|
|
T16/06: Refusal of control, audit, scrutiny etc.
|
|
|
T16/07: Control, audit, scrutiny etc. not carried out in accordance with regulations, rules, plan etc.
|
|
|
T16/08: Infringement of rules concerned with public procurement
|
|
|
T16/09: Infringements with regard to the cofinancing system
|
|
|
T16/10: Refusal to repay not spent or unduly paid amount
|
|
|
T165/99: Other
|
T17
|
Movement
|
T17/00: Irregularities in connection with final destination (change of, non arrival at, etc.)
|
|
|
T17/01: Fictitious movement
|
|
|
T17/99: Other
|
T18
|
Bankruptcy
|
T18/00: Legal persons - liquidation
|
|
|
T18/01: Legal persons - reorganisation to structure debt
|
|
|
T18/02: Natural persons - repayment plan
|
|
|
T18/03: Natural persons - repayment plan not possible
|
|
|
T18/99: Other
|
T19
|
Ethics and integrity
|
T19/00: Conflict of interest
|
|
|
T19/01: Bribery - passive
|
|
|
T19/02: Bribery - active
|
|
|
T19/03: Corruption
|
|
|
T19/04: Corruption - passive
|
|
|
T19/05: Corruption - active
|
|
|
T19/99: Other irregularities concerning integrity and ethics
|
T40
|
Public procurement (see annex Commission Decision C(2013)9527)
|
T40/01: Lack of publication of contract notice
|
|
|
T40/02: Artificial splitting of works/services/supplies contracts
|
|
|
T40/03: Non-compliance with - time limits for receipt of tenders; or - time limits for receipt of requests to participate
|
|
|
T40/04: Insufficient time for potential tenderers/candidates to obtain tender documentation
|
|
|
T40/05: Lack of publication of -extended time limits for receipt of tenders; or - extended time limits for receipt of requests to participate
|
|
|
T40/06: Cases not justifying the use of the negotiated procedure with prior publication of a contract notice
|
|
|
T40/07: For the award of contracts in the field of defence and security falling under directive 2009/81/EC specifically, inadequate justification for the lack of publication of a contract notice
|
|
|
T40/08: Failure to state: - the selection criteria in the contract notice; and/or - the award criteria (and their weighting) in the contract notice or in the tender specifications
|
|
|
T40/09: Unlawful and/or discriminatory selection and/or award criteria laid down in the contract notice or tender documents
|
|
|
T40/10: Selection criteria not related and proportionate to the subjectmatter of the contract
|
|
|
T40/11: Discriminatory technical specifications
|
|
|
T40/12: Insufficient definition of the subject-matter of the contract
|
|
|
T40/13: Modification of selection criteria after opening of tenders, resulting in incorrect acceptance of tenderers
|
|
|
T40/14: Modification of selection criteria after opening of tenders, resulting in incorrect rejection of tenderers
|
|
|
T40/15: Evaluation of tenderers/candidates using unlawful selection or award criteria
|
|
|
T40/16: Lack of transparency and/or equal treatment during evaluation
|
|
|
T40/17: Modification of a tender during evaluation
|
|
|
T40/18: Negotiation during the award procedure
|
|
|
T40/19: Negotiated procedure with prior publication of a contract notice with substantial modification of the conditions set out in the contract notice or tender specifications
|
|
|
T40/20: Rejection of abnormally low tenders
|
|
|
T40/21: Conflict of interest
|
|
|
T40/22: Substantial modification of the contract elements set out in the contract notice or tender specifications
|
|
|
T40/23: Reduction in the scope of the contract
|
|
|
T40/24: Award of additional works/services/supplies contracts (if such award constitutes a substantial modification of the original terms of the contract) without competition in the absence of the applicable conditions (extreme urgency brought about by unforeseeable events; an unforeseen circumstance for complementary works, services, supplies)
|
|
|
T40/25: Additional works or services exceeding the limit laid down in the relevant provisions
|
|
|
T40/99: Other
|
T50
|
State aid
|
T50/01: Failure to notify State Aid
|
|
|
T50/02:Wrong aid scheme applied
|
|
|
T50/03:Misapplication of the aid scheme
|
|
|
T50/04:Monitoring requirements not fulfilled
|
|
|
T50/05:Reference investment not taken into account in the applicable aid scheme
|
|
|
T50/06:No consideration of revenue in the applicable aid scheme
|
|
|
T50/07:No respect of the incentive effect of the aid
|
|
|
T50/08:Aid intensity not respected
|
|
|
T50/09:De Minimis threshold exceeded
|
|
|
T50/99:Other State aid
|
T90
|
Other
|
T90/99: Other irregularities
|
Tables CP17 and CP18
The categories used in Tables CP17 and CP18 are built as follows:
·Infringements concerning the request: T11/00, T11/01, T11/99
·Eligibility / Legitimacy of expenditure/measure: T11/02
·Multiple financing: T11/03, T11/04
·Violations/breaches by the operator: T12
·Incorrect, absent, falsified accounts: T13
·Incorrect, missing, false or falsified supporting documents: T14
·Product, species and/or land: T15
·Infringement of contract provisions/rules: T16/00, T16/01, T16/02, T16/03, T16/04, T16/05, T16/06, T16/07, T16/09, T16/10, T16/99
·Movement: T17
·Bankruptcy: T18
·Ethics and integrity: T19
·Infringement of public procurement rules: T40, T16/08
·State aid: T50
ANNEX 13
Analysis of the sensitivity of FDR and IDR
Intervention in agricultural markets and direct payments
In the main body of this Report reference is made to the FDR (Fraud Detection Rate) and the IDR (Irregularity Detection Rate) in relation to 'Intervention in agricultural markets' and 'direct payments'.
A part of the irregularities used for these calculations are not referred exclusively to a specific policy measure, because the same case may cover several budget posts referring to different measures. These 'mixed' cases have been included in their full financial amount in all policy measures affected.
FDR and IDR for 'Intervention in agricultural markets' in Table NR13_a below is calculated on the basis of the amounts of all the irregularities (fraudulent and non fraudulent) where this type of expenditure is involved (considering in full the 'mixed' cases, as explained above). The same applies with reference to FDR and IDR for 'direct payments'. Table NR13_a shows the outcome of these calculations.
As there are a number of 'intervention of agricultural markets' cases that concern, at the same time, this type of expenditure and other measures, the total amounts (and the corresponding FDR and IDR) associated to 'intervention in agricultural markets' are somehow inflated. The same applies with reference to 'direct payments'.
An analysis is then warranted of how sensitive FDR and IDR are to the presence of these 'mixed' cases. As a first step, an assessment is required of the number of these 'mixed' cases, the nature of the related overlaps and the amounts involved. Fig. NR1-NR3 show the outcome of this assessment, respectively for cases reported as fraudulent, not reported as fraudulent and for all cases together.
Table NR13_b shows FDR and IDR where, for 'intervention in agricultural markets', only the amounts related to cases that do not overlap with rural development or direct payments are included in the calculation (i.e.169,077,274, for the FDR). The same applies to 'direct payments'.
Figures in Table NR13_a represent the upper limit of FDR and IDR for 'intervention in agricultural markets' or 'direct payments', as they include amounts that are linked to irregularities or fraud related also to other types of expenditure.
Figures in Table NR13_b represent the lower limit of FDR and IDR for 'intervention in agricultural markets' or 'direct payments', as they exclude part of the amounts of the 'mixed' cases that could be related to the relevant types of expenditure.
As FDR and IDR in Tables NR13_a and NR13_b are similar, it can be concluded that they are not significantly sensitive to this 'mixed' cases issue.
Rural development (RD) and support to agriculture (SA)
FDR and IDR for 'Support to agriculture' ('SA') is calculated on the basis of the amounts (of the irregularities or fraud) related to cases where only this type of expenditure is involved. The same applies with reference to FDR and IDR for 'Rural development' ('RD'). Table NR13_c shows the outcome of this calculation.
There are a number of cases that have not been classified as 'pure' 'RD' or 'SA' cases. They are reported as 'mixed' cases (RD/SA). This implies that the total amounts (and the corresponding FDR and IDR) associated to 'RD' are somehow underestimated. The same applies with reference to 'SA'.
An analysis is then warranted of how sensitive FDR and IDR are to the presence of these RD/SA 'mixed' cases. As a first step, an assessment is required of the number of these 'mixed' cases and the amounts involved. Fig. NR4-NR6 show the outcome of this assessment, respectively for cases reported as fraudulent, not reported as fraudulent and for all cases together.
Fig. NR4: Irregularities and amounts reported as fraudulent by type of expenditure – 2013-2017
Rural development
1,164
141,497,223
Support to agriculture
814
202,229,133
Rural development
10,750
598,208,343
Support to agriculture
5,099
350,375,231
Fig. NR6: Irregularities and amounts reported by type of expenditure – 2013-2017
Rural development
11,914
739,705,566
Support to agriculture
5,913
552,604,364
Table NR13_d shows FDR and IDR where 'mixed' cases are added both for 'rural development' and 'support to agriculture'. In practice, for 'rural development', also all the amounts related to 'mixed' cases' are added to the amounts related to the 'pure' rural development cases (i.e. 7,186,295 for the FDR). The same applies to 'support to agriculture'. Therefore, FDR and IDR in Table NR13_d are somehow inflated and represent the upper limit.
As FDR and IDR in Tables NR13_c and NR13_d are similar, it can be concluded that they are not significantly sensitive to this 'mixed' cases issue. The biggest variation concerns the IDR for rural development, which amounts to 0.1 or about 10% of the IDR.
Annex 14
Full description of 'reasons for performing control'
Description in Tables NR16, NR17, NR18, NR19, NR20, NR21, CP19, CP20
|
Full description
|
media
|
Information published in the media
|
tip
|
Tip from informant, whistle-blower etc.
|
complaint
|
Complaint
|
confession
|
Spontaneous confession
|
refusal
|
Refusal to accept controls
|
conduct
|
Suspicious conduct
|
admin. enqu.
|
Administrative enquiry
|
judicial enq.
|
Judicial enquiry
|
mutual Assistance
|
Mutual Assistance Message (reg. 515/97)
|
info from EU
|
Information and/or request from EU-body
|
irr. from EU
|
Irregularity detected and reported by EU-body
|
request MS
|
Request by other Member State
|
irr. from MS
|
Irregularity detected and reported by other Member State
|
scrutiny 4045
|
Scrutiny on basis of Reg. 4045/1989
|
scrutiny 3508
|
Scrutiny on basis of Reg. 3508/1992 & 1782/2003 (IACS)
|
control 386
|
Control on basis of Reg. 386/1990
|
scrutiny 485
|
Scrutiny on basis of Reg. 485/2008
|
routine
|
Routine
|
prob. checks
|
Probability checks
|
chance
|
Chance
|
random
|
Random check
|
doubts
|
Existing doubts
|
risk analysis
|
Risk analysis
|
stat. analysis
|
Statistical analysis
|
comp. data
|
Comparison of data
|
reconciliation
|
Account reconciliation
|
payment
|
Intermediate or full payment
|
Paym. balance
|
Payment of balance
|
release guarantee
|
Release of guarantee
|
review
|
Review of conditions
|
other
|
Other
|
ANNEX 15
Full description of themes in Figures CP1 and CP2
Description in Figures CP1 and CP2
|
Full description
|
R&TD activities in research centres
|
R&TD activities in research centres
|
R&TD infrastructure and centres of competence in a specific technology
|
R&TD infrastructure (including physical plant, instrumentation and high-speed computer networks linking research centres) and centres of competence in a specific technology
|
Technology transfer and improvement of cooperation networks involving SMEs
|
Technology transfer and improvement of cooperation networks between small businesses (SMEs), between these and other businesses and universities, postsecondary education establishments of all kinds, regional authorities, research centres and scientific and technological poles (scientific and technological parks, technopoles, etc.)
|
Assistance to R&TD, particularly in SMEs
|
Assistance to R&TD, particularly in SMEs (including access to R&TD services in research centres)
|
Advanced support services for firms and groups of firms
|
Advanced support services for firms and groups of firms
|
SMEs for env.
|
Assistance to SMEs for the promotion of environmentally-friendly products and production processes (introduction of effective environment managing system, adoption and use of pollution prevention technologies, integration of clean technologies into firm production)
|
Investment in firms directly linked to research and innovation
|
Investment in firms directly linked to research and innovation (innovative technologies, establishment of new firms by universities, existing R&TD centres and firms, etc.)
|
Other investment in firms
|
Other investment in firms
|
Other measures to stimulate research and innovation and entrepreneurship in SMEs
|
Other measures to stimulate research and innovation and entrepreneurship in SMEs
|
ANNEX 16
Legenda
SA: Support to Agriculture
RD: Rural Development
SA/RD: Support to Agriculture/ Rural Development
GUID: European Agricultural Guarantee and Guidance Fund – Section Guidance
EFF: European Fisheries Fund
EMFF: European Maritime and Fisheries Fund
CF: Cohesion Fund
ERDF: European Regional and Development Fund
ESF: European Social Fund
AMIF: Asylum, Migration and Integration Fund
YEI: Youth Employment Initiative
HRD: pre-accession, Human Resources Development component
IPARD: Instrument for Pre-Accession for Rural Development
PHARE: Pre-accession assistance programme
REGD: pre-accession, Regional Development component
TAIB: Transition Assistance and Institution Building
TIPAA: Turkey Instrument for Pre-accession Assistance
CBC: pre-accession, Cross-Border Cooperation component