COUNCIL OFBrussels, 17 July 2009
THE EUROPEAN UNION
12139/09 ADD 2
GAF 6 FIN 266
COVER NOTE
from:
Secretary-General of the European Commission, signed by Mr Jordi AYET PUIGARNAU, Director
date of receipt: 15 July 2009
to: Mr Javier SOLANA, Secretary-General/High Representative
Subject: Commission Staff Working Document - Annex to the 2008 Report from the Commission on the protection of the European Communities' financial interests and the fight against fraud
-
-Statistical evaluation of irregularities - Own Resources, Agriculture, Structural Measures, Pre-Accession Funds and Direct Expenditure - Year 2008
Delegations will find attached Commission document SEC(2009) 1003 final.
COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES
Brussels, 15.7.2009 SEC(2009) 1003 final
COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT
Annex to the 2008 Report from the Commission on the protection of the European
Communities' financial interests and the fight against fraud
STATISTICAL EVALUATION OF IRREGULARITIES- OWN RESOURCES,
AGRICULTURE, STRUCTURAL MEASURES, PRE-ACCESSION FUNDS AND
DIRECT EXPENDITURE -YEAR 2008
{COM(2009) 372} {SEC(2009) 1002}
TABLE OF CONTENTS
-
1.The situation in 2008 .................................................................................................... 6
1.1. Introduction .................................................................................................................. 6
1.2. Key Facts ...................................................................................................................... 9
1.2.1. Traditional Own Resources .......................................................................................... 9
1.2.2. Agriculture.................................................................................................................... 9
1.2.3. European Fishery Fund............................................................................................... 10
1.2.4. Structural Measures .................................................................................................... 10
1.2.5. Pre-accession Funds ................................................................................................... 10
-
2.TRADITIONAL OWN RESOURCES (ANNEXES 1-10)........................................ 11
2.1. Management of Traditional Own Resources (TOR) .................................................. 11
2.1.1. Monitoring of establishment and recovery of TOR ................................................... 11
2.1.2. Procedure for managing Member States' requests for write-off ................................ 12
2.1.3. Particular cases of Member State failure to recover TOR.......................................... 14
2.2. Reporting discipline.................................................................................................... 14
2.2.1. Year of discovery versus year reported ...................................................................... 15
2.3. General trends............................................................................................................. 15
2.3.1. Method of detection.................................................................................................... 16
2.5.3. Recovery indicators .................................................................................................... 21
2.5.3.1. Recovery rates in case of fraud .................................................................................. 21
2.5.3.2. Recovery rates in case of MA communications ......................................................... 22
2.5.3.3. Recovery rates by method of detection ...................................................................... 23
2.5.3.4. Recovery rates by category of amount ....................................................................... 23
2.5.3.5. Recovery rates by origin............................................................................................. 24
2.5.4. Write-down and write-off of established amounts ..................................................... 24
2.5.4.1. Written down when recovery is unlikely.................................................................... 24
2.5.4.2. Written off when the debt is deemed irrecoverable.................................................... 24
2.5.4.3. Estimation of the recovery of established amounts.................................................... 25
2.5.5. Impact on the budget .................................................................................................. 25
2.6. Conclusions ................................................................................................................ 27
-
3.AGRICULTURAL EXPENDITURE (Annexes 11-12) ............................................ 29
3.1. Reporting discipline.................................................................................................... 30
3.1.1. Timely reporting (Art. 3(1) Reg. 1848/2006)............................................................. 32
3.1.2. Budget year, budget line and product affected (Art. 3(1) (a) Reg. 1848/2006) ......... 32
3.1.3. The moment at which the irregularity was committed (Art. 3(1) (i) Reg. 1848/2006)
.................................................................................................................................... 33
3.1.4. Practices employed and classification (Art. 3 (1) (e) (f) Reg. 1848/2006) ................ 33
3.1.5. Legal/natural persons identification (Art. 3 (1) (l) Reg. 1848/2006) ......................... 34
3.4.2. Sanctions..................................................................................................................... 56
3.5. Conclusions ................................................................................................................ 58
-
4.European Fishery Fund............................................................................................... 61
-
5.Structural measures (Annexes 13-17) ........................................................................ 62
5.1. Reporting Discipline................................................................................................... 62
5.2. General Trends ........................................................................................................... 65
5.2.1. Overall trends ............................................................................................................. 65
5.2.1.1. Trends related to the Funds ........................................................................................ 66
5.2.1.2. Trends related to Member States................................................................................ 67
5.2.2. Amounts involved ...................................................................................................... 68
5.2.2.1. The four Structural Funds........................................................................................... 70
5.2.2.2. The Cohesion Fund..................................................................................................... 72
5.2.3. Impact on budget ........................................................................................................ 72
5.2.4. Detection methods ...................................................................................................... 73
5.2.5. Types of irregularity ................................................................................................... 74
5.2.6. Suspected frauds......................................................................................................... 75
5.3. Specific analysis Irregularities related to the programming period 2000-2006 ...... 78
5.3.1. Irregularities affecting the different funds.................................................................. 80
5.3.2. Irregularities by Objective.......................................................................................... 81
6.2.1. Overall trend ............................................................................................................... 93
6.2.2. Trend related to Member States and Candidate countries.......................................... 94
6.2.3. Amounts involved ...................................................................................................... 95
6.2.4. Impact on the budget .................................................................................................. 97
6.2.5. Method of detection.................................................................................................... 98
6.2.6. Types of irregularities............................................................................................... 100
6.3. Specific analysis ....................................................................................................... 101
6.3.1. Irregularities affecting different funds...................................................................... 101
6.3.2. Irregularity vs suspected fraud ................................................................................. 103
6.3.3. Recovery................................................................................................................... 106
6.4. Conclusions .............................................................................................................. 108
-
7.Direct Expenditure Centralised direct Management ............................................. 110
7.1. Methodology and scope............................................................................................ 110
7.2. General analysis........................................................................................................ 111
7.2.1. Financial amounts involved...................................................................................... 111
7.2.2. Financial amounts involved by geographical area and Member State ..................... 113
7.2.3. Method of detection.................................................................................................. 116
7.2.4. Types of irregularity ................................................................................................. 117
7.3. Specific analysis ....................................................................................................... 120
-
1.THE SITUATION IN 2008
1.1. Introduction
According to article 274 of the Treaty on the European Community, the European Commission shall implement the budget. Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002
1 of 25 June 2002 on the Financial Regulation (FR) applicable to the
general budget of the European Communities indicates that the Commission implements the budget:
ˇ on a centralised basis: implementation tasks are performed either directly by its
departments or indirectly by executive agencies created by the Commission, bodies set up by the Communities - provided that this is compatible with the tasks set out in the basic act - and, subject to certain conditions, national public-sector bodies or bodies governed by private law with a public-service mission;
ˇ on a shared or decentralised basis: implementation tasks are delegated to the
Member States (shared management) or third countries (decentralised management); the Commission applies clearance-of-accounts procedures or financial correction mechanisms enabling it to assume final responsibility for the implementation of the budget;
ˇ by joint management with international organisations: certain implementation
tasks are entrusted to international organisations.
Community legislation provides for the protection of the Community's financial interests in all areas of activity
-
2.The FR sets the principles and rules for the correct
implementation of the budget. Member States are required to notify the Commission of evidence of fraud and other irregularities. This need is particularly evident in those sectors of the Community budget where the main responsibility for management is with the Member States, namely, in the fields of Agriculture and Structural Funds (on the expenditure side) and Own Resources (on the revenue side). In these areas, Member States must inform the Commission of all irregularities involving more than 10,000 of community finances. This applies at all stages in the procedure for recovering monies unduly paid or not received.
Regulation No. 1848/20063 specifies the requirement for the agriculture sector,
Regulations Nos. 1681/944 and 1831/945, as amended, respectively by Regulations
Nos. 2035/2005 and 2168/2005, for structural measures and Regulation No. 1150/2000 for own resources. In the case of pre-accession funds the obligation to report irregularities is specified in Community legislation and in the Pre-Accession and Accession Agreements the European Community and the Candidate and Acceding States.
The European Parliament and the Council adopted a series of Regulations introducing a new system for the Structural Funds for the new 2007-2013 programming period
-
6.The rules on reporting irregularities to the Commission have
been retained, but the communication procedure is now part of the implementing Regulations
7 rather than a separate Regulation, as was previously the case. The old
Regulations have been repealed, but will continue to apply with reference to former programming periods.
The provisions to be followed are mostly based on the Commission Regulation (EC)
No 1681/1994. Member States are required to report irregularities under Article 3 of these regulations (for own resources the relevant provisions are contained in Article 6, paragraph 5. For agriculture, the relevant provisions are contained in article 3) within two months of the end of each quarter. Under Article 5 (again, Article 6, paragraph 5 for own resources) they have to submit updates of the cases communicated and relevant information about the financial, administrative and judicial follow-up.
3 As of 1st January 2007, also the threshold for the agriculture sector has been increased to 10,000 following the provisions contained in article 6(1) of Regulation (EC) 1848/2006 of 14 December 2006
(OJ L 355 of 15.12.2006).
4 Regulation 1681/94 applies to the Structural Funds, that is to say European Regional Development Fund (ERDF), European Social Fund (ESF), European Agriculture Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF) Section Guidance and Financial Instrument for Fishery Guidance (FIFG).
The distinction between irregularities and fraud is that fraud8 is a criminal act that
can only be determined by the outcome of judicial proceedings. As such, it is only when the judicial procedure has come to an end that the actual amount of fraud can be determined. While awaiting the results, the Commission works on the basis of the information supplied by Member States concerning cases of irregularities some of which, in the opinion of the reporting Member States, give rise to suspicions of fraud. The Commission's statistical assessment of and ability to respond to, irregularities are influenced by the accuracy and timeliness of the notifications made
by the Member States.
The practices of the national administrations still vary, though improvements have been achieved thanks to the efforts made to harmonise their approaches. The data communicated by Member States is sometimes incomplete. Furthermore, the distinction between "suspected frauds" and other irregularities is not consistent as Member States do not always have the same definition of criminal risk. Consequently, a significant proportion of communications received by the Commission do not distinguish between suspected fraud and irregularity.
The Commission works in close cooperation with the Member States to improve the notification system for irregularities, in particular to clarify the concepts of "fraud" and "irregularity"
9 and as a result of this, attempts to measure the possible economic
impact of fraud in certain sectors have been made. However, for the reasons outlined above, the figures presented below should be interpreted with caution. It would be particularly inappropriate to draw simple conclusions about the geographical distribution of fraud or on the efficiency of the services which contribute to the protection of financial interests.
The present document is divided in two parts.
The first is dedicated to the analysis of irregularities reported in the area of the Traditional Own Resources (Revenues). The implementation mode for this part of the budget is that described under letter b. shared management.
The second is composed of 5 chapters dedicated, respectively, to Agricultural expenditure, European Fishery Fund, Structural measures (for these three sectors the management mode is that indicated under letter b. shared management), Pre- accession Assistance (the implementation mode for this sector is indicated under letter b. decentralised management) and Direct expenditure (whose implementation mode is that described under letter a.).
1.2. Key Facts
Annex 22 gives an overview of all irregularities communicated by Member States under Regulation No. 1848/2006 for the agriculture sector, Regulations Nos. 1681/94, 1831/94 and 1828/2006 for structural measures and Regulation No. 1150/2000 for own resources.
In general, the number of irregularities notified for the year 2008 has decreased by 2%.
The following paragraphs will provide details concerning the different sectors of the budget analysed in this document.
The total number of irregularities has increased for traditional own resources and structural funds. It has also increased for the pre-accession funds. It has decreased for the cohesion fund and agriculture.
However, the total financial amounts affected by irregularities notified for the year 2007 has increased/decreased by 23.6%.
The total amounts affected by irregularities have increased for traditional own resources and the pre-accession funds. They have decreased for agriculture, structural and cohesion funds.
Irregularities notified in this sector represent 0.21% of the agricultural budget (see annexes 11 and 12).
1.2.3. European Fishery Fund
No irregularities have yet been reported concerning the European Fishery Fund on the basis of Commission Regulation (EC) No 498/2007.
1.2.4. Structural Measures
In 2008 Member States reported 3,960 irregularities under Regulation (EC) No 1681/94 which covers the four Structural Funds and 140 under Regulation (EC) No 1831/94 (on the Cohesion Fund). The total amount affected by irregularities in 2008 was almost EUR 585 million, EUR 528.6 million of which was from the Structural Funds and EUR 56.3 million from the Cohesion Fund. Irregularities reported in this sector were equivalent to 1.25% of the budget allocated to structural measures in 2008.
In 2007, Member States reported 3,858 irregularities under Regulation (EC) No 1681/94 which covers the four Structural Funds and 140 under Regulation (EC) No 1831/94 (on the Cohesion Fund). 9 irregularities were reported under Regulation No 1828/2006, which covers the programming period 2007-2013. The total amount affected by irregularities in 2008 was about EUR 585.2 million, EUR 528.9 million of which was from the Structural Funds and EUR 56.3 million from the Cohesion Fund. Irregularities reported in this sector were equivalent to 1.25% of the resource allocations for 2008.
For the first time irregularities related to the programming period 2007-2013 (whose reporting is disciplined by Regulation (EC) No 1828/2006) were reported to the Commission.
PART I - REVENUES
-
2.TRADITIONAL OWN RESOURCES (ANNEXES 1-10)
2.1. Management of Traditional Own Resources (TOR)
The Community must have access to Traditional Own Resources (`TOR')10 under the
best possible conditions. In conformity with Regulation (EC, Euratom) 1150/200011
Member States are responsible for making available to the Commission, within the deadlines set, TOR that they have established. Established amounts of customs or agricultural duties that have been recovered and debts that are guaranteed and not under appeal are to be made available via the A-account. However, where TOR have been established by a Member State but not yet recovered and where no security has been provided or the established amount has been disputed Member States may enter these TOR amounts in the B-account. These amounts of TOR are not then made available until actually recovered. Most fraud and irregularity cases relate to B- account items.
2.1.1. Monitoring of establishment and recovery of TOR
In order to get the right picture of Member States' TOR recovery activity it is important to keep in mind that over 95% of all amounts of TOR established are subsequently recovered without any particular problem. These amounts are entered in the A-account and made available to the Commission. This covers most of the `normal' import flows where release for free circulation gives rise to a customs debt. The remaining exceptional items are entered in the B-account. This proportion should be borne in mind when evaluating Member States' recovery activity.
In return for their collection task, and to support sound and efficient management of public finances, Member States may keep 25% of the amounts involved. In its capacity as Authorising Officer responsible for executing the EU budget, the Commission (DG Budget as delegated Authorising Officer) monitors Member State activity concerning establishing and recovering TOR.
Office (OLAF) where OLAF has issued the Mutual Assistance message in question and/or has an operational interest in the case concerned.
These three methods allow the Commission to monitor Member States' performance without interfering too much in their day-to-day operations.
2.1.2. Procedure for managing Member States' requests for write-off
Member States must take all requisite measures to ensure that amounts corresponding to the entitlements established are made available to the Commission. This requirement is in Article 17(1) of Regulation 1150/2000. Article 17 also provides that a Member State may only be released from its obligation where established entitlements prove irrecoverable either:
(a) for reasons of force majeure; or
(b) for other reasons which cannot be attributed to that Member State.
Amounts of established entitlements become irrecoverable by one of two routes. The first is by a decision of a Member State declaring that they cannot be recovered -- this declaration may be made at any time. However, TOR must be deemed irrecoverable by a Member State at the latest five years from the date on which the amount was established, or in the event of an administrative or judicial appeal, the final decision was given, or the last part-payment of an established amount was made, whichever is the later. Where the irrecoverable amount of TOR exceeds a threshold of 50 000 the write-off must be reported to the Commission. For amounts under 50 000, Member States do not have to communicate the case to the Commission unless the Commission makes a specific request.
A 2004 amendment to Regulation No 1150/200012 introduced the five-year
timeframe within which a Member State has to provide the Commission with information on amounts of established entitlements of TOR deemed irrecoverable. In 2008 the already expected marked increase in requests by Member States to write off established TOR amounts deemed irrecoverable indeed occurred. Compared with 2007 the number went up from 100 to 589 requests. This effect will probably continue in 2009. The increase primarily consisted of old cases not yet reported to the Commission, but meeting the five-year deadline triggering application of the write-off procedure.
TABLE OR 1
Commission position cases % cases % amount
UNSUITABLE EXEMPTION REQUEST 2 0.43% 41,339.05 0.05%
WRITE-OFF ACCEPTED 132 28.39% 17,338,091.14 13.63%
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION REQUIRED 299 64.3% 92,320,654.22 72.61%
WRITE-OFF REFUSED 32 6.88% 17,434,228.42 13.71%
TOTAL 465 100% 127,134,312.83 100%
Examination of Member States' diligence in these cases constitutes a very effective mechanism for gauging their activity in the field of recovery. It encourages national administrations to step up the regularity, efficiency and effectiveness of their recovery activity, since any lack of diligence leading to failure to recover results in individual Member States having to foot the bill. During 2008 over 14 million was paid by Member States because of refused write-offs.
2.1.3. Particular cases of Member State failure to recover TOR
Where TOR is not established because of an administrative error by a Member State the Commission applies the principle of financial liability
-
16.As a result up to 2008
over 70 million was paid by Member States, aside from interest on late payment17.
Altogether the cases of financial liability dealt with by DG Budget up until the end of 2008 total nearly 260 million. The main objective of this procedure is to encourage individual Member States to improve their administrations' performance and to address weaknesses leading to a loss of TOR and national taxes. This money is in effect transferred back to the Member States in proportion to their contribution to the EU budget as it reduces their contributions via the GNI resource.
Because all TOR amounts exceeding 10 000 in the B-account represent an irregularity (fraud included) by definition the match between the two from the standpoint of the B-account should be 100%
-
19.This match is checked during the
regular inspections in the Member States; however, no significant shortcomings have been found in recent years.
OWNRES is not a reliable source of data on fraud alone, isolated from irregularity. This is because (until a court judgment is obtained) the distinction between fraud and irregularity is usually made on subjective grounds. These grounds vary greatly between national administrations and so the results cannot be relied upon. Please bear these considerations in mind when looking at the following analysis of OWNRES data.
2.2.1. Year of discovery versus year reported
Cases should be included in OWNRES upon the initial discovery of the irregularity or fraud case. As a result the year of the customs operation and the year of discovery of the irregularity or fraud can diverge. Member States are continually adding new cases and updating existing items. So the information generated by OWNRES represents the situation on the date of the query. For instance, the number of irregularities and frauds concerning 2007 in last year's report was 5 321 cases whereas the number of cases now shown for 2007 is 6 097 cases
-
20.This continuing
development is inherent to the system.
2.3. General trends
The number of cases communicated to OWNRES for 2008 is currently 12.5% lower in comparison with 2007 (from 6 097 to 5 344), and the amount of TOR involved is likewise 12.5% smaller (from 401 million to 351 million
)21. The trend for the
number of belatedly discharged Community Transit operations to decrease continued
22, and the amount involved decreased as well. In the case of Transit
practice shows that up to 90% of the initially established debts are ultimately cancelled, because of proof of regular discharge after all.
The OWNRES database now contains 51 412 cases in total (1989-2008), showing an increase of nearly 14% during 2008
-
23.Significant changes in the number of
registrations in 2008 compared with 2007 can be seen for Romania (+ 103%), Malta (- 70%), Sweden (+ 63%), Greece (- 44%) and Slovakia (- 43%). Significant changes in amounts can be seen in Estonia (+ 221%), Sweden (+ 173%), the Czech Republic (+ 119%), Romania (+ 90%), the Netherlands (+ 82%) and Austria (- 86%)
24.
2.3.1. Method of detection
A variety of detection methods can reveal irregularity or fraud. Judging from the 2008 data the most fruitful methods are national post-clearance inspections and primary national inspections (either physical inspections or inspections of documents
-- the latter category featuring most frequently). Post-clearance inspections feature in 47% of the cases discovered whereas primary national inspections cover 30%.
It is clear that the shift which could already be seen in previous years from primary to post-clearance inspections continued in 2008. It marks the beginning of a trend related to ongoing changes in declaration and control procedures. The relative importance of inspections by anti-fraud services was stable with 6% in 2008 compared to 7% in 2007. Since the final results of such inspections take more time than regular inspections, a (slight) increase in the percentage for 2008 may be expected in future registrations.
CHART OR 1: Methods of detection 2006-2008
Method of detection 2006-2008
3000
S
2500
A SE
2000
F C
O1500
E R
2.3.2. Types of irregularity and fraud
A breakdown of frauds and irregularities by customs procedure and by mechanism type confirms that release for free circulation is the procedure most commonly specified (67% of cases
25). False declarations (misdescription, incorrect value, origin
and preferential arrangements) and formal shortcomings (failure to fulfil obligations or commitments) are the mechanisms most frequently mentioned, but also smuggling
is highly placed.
The goods (defined by the first two numbers of the CN code26) most affected by
fraud and irregularities in 2008, as in previous years, are TVs/monitors etc. (CN 85) and tobacco products (CN 24). Clothing (CN 61-62) increased in importance when compared to 2007 as did machines (CN 84), plastics (CN 39) and meat (CN 02), whereas (parts of) cars and motors (CN 87) remained relatively stable and vegetables (specifically garlic) (CN 07) went down
-
27.Footwear (CN 64), first placed in 2007,
has completely disappeared out of the top 25 in 200828. The variety of goods in the
top 25 (defined by the first two numbers of the CN code) is stable at 14 to 15 types since 2006.
CHART OR 229: Fraud and irregularities breakdown by goods in 2008 in MEUR
Fraud and Irregularities breakdown by goods in 2008 in Mio.
Other 42 (12%)
TV's, (computer)
Plastics 11 (3%)monitors etc. 114 (32%)
Vegetables 14 (4%)
Animals and products
thereof 14 (4%)
Analysis of the origin of goods subject to fraud and irregularity30 reveals that, just as
in 2007, goods originating from China, Japan, the US, South Korea, Bangladesh and Brazil remain very much affected. The number of cases in the origin category non- specified decreased, as in previous years, in parallel with the decrease in Transit cases.
2.3.3. Data main sectors TOR
See Annexes 1-10.
2.4. Specific analysis
2.4.1. TOR and cigarettes
In 2008 there were 255 cases registered of seized and confiscated cigarettes (CN code 24 02 20 90) involving estimated
31 TOR of over 22 million. In 2007 the
number of registered cases concerning seized and confiscated goods was 188, totalling over 16 million. The growth of the number of cases is related to the EUR- 15, of which the UK shows the most significant increase, from 42 cases in 2007 up to 100 cases in 2008. This is primarily caused by improvements in registration.
2.4.2. Classification of irregularities and fraud by Member States
OWNRES cases concern customs operations involving irregularity or fraud. Of all the cases registered in 2008 20% (1 073 out of 5 344 registered cases) are categorised as frauds, which is a slightly smaller proportion than in 2007 (1 404 out of 6 097 registered cases)
-
32.However, differences between Member States in the proportion
so categorised are relatively large. For instance, in 2008 the United Kingdom categorised 93 out of 1 023 cases as fraud (equivalent to 9.09%) whereas Greece so categorised 100% (32 out of 32 cases communicated), Latvia 0.00% (0 out of 40 cases) and France 39.55% (123 out of 311 cases notified). For 2007 the figures were for the UK 9.70% (104 out of 1 072), for Greece 100% (57 out of 57), for Latvia 0.00% (0 out of 25 cases) and for France 46.79% (153 out of 327). These figures demonstrate that the categorisation of irregularity and fraud in OWNRES is not fully reliable.
exhausted. Also cases of smuggled and seized goods (usually cigarettes) are registered as closed
33.
A case is registered as open when recovery measures are still ongoing. This means that either legal procedures (administrative and judicial appeal) are still ongoing, which may lead to a correction of the established amount, or to success or failure to obtain payment of the debt, whether or not after coercive recovery.
2.5.1. Corrections to established amounts
For a variety of reasons an established amount may not be completely recovered, despite Member States' efforts. The proportion varies from Member State to Member State.
Amounts established may change because of additional information or judicial procedures when, for instance, revision shows that there was no customs debt after all or the value or origin of the goods is different than initially thought.
OWNRES shows -- for all closed cases -- that approximately 50% of the initial establishment amount is corrected (cancelled). For closed cases related to Community Transit this may reach up to 90%. As a consequence, Belgium and the Netherlands show more corrections than average, because establishments related to Community Transit likewise occur more. This is due to the ports of Antwerp and Rotterdam.
2.5.2. Recovery rates
Differences in recovery results arise from factors such as the type of fraud or irregularity or the type of debtor involved. The debt may also be deemed irrecoverable because of the debtor's financial problems. There are different definitions expressing the results of recovery of a debt.
denominator decreases in value, the percentage of the RR goes up, even without having more actual payments. Because recovery is ongoing, the RR is constantly changing (payments are obtained, new establishments are made and corrections are taken into account). The RR for all years (1989-2008) is 42.8%
35.
The overall RR for 2007 recorded in last year's report was 39.9% although it has since climbed to 49.7%. At present the RR for 2008 is 37.5%
36, which is an average
starting position, although less good than last year's 40%. Over the last decade the RR has varied between 40% and 55% (see OR: Chart 3).
The 10 Member States which acceded in 2004 are now carrying out post-clearance controls, audits and inspections covering longer periods after their accession. For establishments following these controls recovery is generally more problematic. As a result the rates of the EUR-15 and EUR-10 are now growing closer to each other.
The RR for Romania and Bulgaria is high when corrected for cases of smuggled and seized cigarettes. Currently it is significantly above the average rate of the EUR-27. This is primarily the result of recovery in one big case by Romania. It may be expected that in time the RR for the EUR-2 will also grow towards the average of the other Member States.
CHART OR 3: Recovery rates 1996-2008
Recovery Rates 1996-2008
80.00%
70.00%
60.00%
EUR-15
50.00%
% EUR-10
recovery of the actual amount to be paid after all corrections (revisions because of appeal procedures, requests for repayments or remissions, etc.) should be taken into account (hereafter: HRR -- historical recovery rate).
To determine the HRR, only closed cases37 should be analysed, since for those the
Member States have brought all their recovery efforts to an end. The formula for the HRR is:
Recovered amount because of payments obtained (closed cases)
HRR = -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- x 100%
Established amount (closed cases) minus processed corrections (closed cases)
The HRR is around 80% according to OWNRES38. In other words, of every 10 000
of duties operators really and ultimately have to pay for OWNRES cases, approximately 8 000 is collected. The amount not collected relates to either amounts written off or amounts involved in seized and confiscated goods.
2.5.3. Recovery indicators
Success in recovery depends on many factors. OWNRES provides categories of information that may be useful as indicators to forecast such success by means of extrapolation, since the recovery rate by (combination of) indicator(s) appears relatively constant over time.
Useful recovery indicators in OWNRES are fraud, type of customs procedure, the presence of an MA communication, method of detection and origin of the product. Combinations of these indicators improve the accuracy of the prognosis further. Of course the final outcome of an individual case will always depend on its unique particulars.
2.5.3.1. Recovery rates in case of fraud
instance, 2006 currently shows an RR for fraud cases of 22.8%. As mentioned before, the recovery rates change as time passes (paragraph 2.5.2.1.). The RR in fraud cases is clearly much lower than that for irregularities since the RR in 2008 for those cases is 40.7%. The RR for all years (1989-2008) for fraud and irregularity combined is 42.8%.
Also in the long term, the HRR indicates an equally strong relation, showing that recovery in fraud cases is generally much less successful than in cases of irregularity (see table below). Classification of a case as fraud is thus a strong indicator for forecasting short- and long-term recovery results.
TABLE OR 2: Historical Recovery Rate 1989-2005
HRR 1989 2005
Fraud 43%
Irregularity 89%
Total 82%
2.5.3.2. Recovery rates in case of MA communications
Establishments following an MA communication display higher recovery rates. OWNRES shows that the HRR is over 90% for cases with an MA reference, whereas for establishments without such reference the output is just over 80%. Based on these figures it may be concluded that Member States are more alerted in the case of such communications than in normal situations.
TABLE OR 3: Historical Recovery Rate for MA communications
HRR 1989 2005
No MA reference 81.5%
With MA reference 92.5%
Total 82.2%
2.5.3.3. Recovery rates by method of detection
The relation between the recovery rates and the methods of detection may be considered significant when there is a voluntary admission / correction by the importer, or when the case is discovered during primary national inspections. In those circumstances the HRR is over 95% respectively 85.2%. When the establishment is the result of inspections (e.g. by anti-fraud services) the HRR drops to 79.7% thus only being slightly lower than in the case of regular post-clearance audits (80.8%). Also when the method of detection is combined with the types of cases discovered (fraud or irregularity), the ratios do not change significantly.
CHART OR 4: Recovery Rate by method of detection
100.00%
90.00%Inspections (eg by anti- f raud services)
80.00%
70.00%Post clearance audits
60.00%
50.00%Primary national inspections
40.00%
30.00%Voluntary admission
20.00%
10.00%Total
0.00%
HRR BY METHOD OF DETECTION
> 500 000 30.22% 24.80% 21.88% 30.52% 15.86%
Total 48.18% 46.34% 44.41% 49.67% 37.55%
2.5.3.5. Recovery rates by origin
Concerning the origin countries most frequently mentioned (see paragraph 2.3.2.) the RR indicates more success in the case of imports from the US or Japan than for China or Bangladesh, irrespective of whether the case is registered as fraud or irregularity
-
40.This relationship is not equally strong or constant for other countries.
For the RR changing patterns of irregularity influence the outcome strongly, especially since open cases with ongoing judicial procedures and recovery are also included. For the HRR the difference in origin no longer appears to be significant.
2.5.4. Write-down and write-off of established amounts
Member States inform the Commission about the recovery of established entitlements on the basis of two different legal obligations: under Article 6(4) of Regulation 1150/2000
41 the Member States annually communicate amounts for
which recovery is unlikely, whereas on the basis of Article 17(2) of Regulation 1150/2000 they communicate certain cases where the debt is deemed irrecoverable.
2.5.4.1. Written down when recovery is unlikely
Annually Member States communicate amounts in the separate account (B-account) for which recovery has become unlikely. This estimation is used for accounting purposes. The Member States communicate -- on average -- that recovery of around 60% to 65% of the established amount is unlikely and may need to be written down
42.
2.5.4.2. Written off when the debt is deemed irrecoverable
When part of the debt over 50 000, after all recovery measures are exhausted, is still unpaid, the Member State has to communicate their decision to write the amount off to the Commission. The Commission will then assess the recovery efforts and decide whether the Member State involved has acted diligently and taken all the necessary measures or should be considered responsible for the loss and compensate the Community budget
The figures in OWNRES showing written-off amounts are not reliable yet. This is mainly due to the awaited catch-up effect for cases before 2004
44 and the related
differences in Member States' method of registration. Currently OWNRES indicates for cases from 1989 until 2006 that around 20% is written off
-
45.For the EUR-15 the
figures vary between 0% and 8%, which can be explained by the fact that the five- year period has not yet elapsed and recovery of outstanding debts is generally still ongoing.
TABLE OR 5: Average write-off rate for closed cases
AVERAGE WRITE-OFF RATE CLOSED CASES - 1989-2006 (excluding smuggled/seized goods)
Initially Recovery Written-off Write-off
established Correction Established after
correction rate % amount rate %
3 199 840 405 -/- 1 578 796 920 1 621 043 485 334 090 575
79% 21%
2.5.4.3. Estimation of the recovery of established amounts
Comparing the annual communication by Member States mentioned in paragraph 2.5.4.1. with the figures in paragraphs 2.5.2. and 2.5.4.1., it appears that the annual estimation of amounts unlikely to be recovered in the separate account (60% to 65%) matches relatively closely the data in OWNRES. For the latter the amount unlikely to be recovered may be defined as the sum of the average amount corrected (50%) plus the percentage written off (around 20% of the amount after corrections
46). Thus, of a
random establishment registered in OWNRES around 40% is recovered, in other words, of every 10 000 of duties initially established approximately 4 000 is actually paid.
2.5.5. Impact on the budget
The amounts that were registered in OWNRES for 2008 have a financial impact of 351 million. Over the last decade the value of amounts has ranged from 200 million up to 401 million (year 2007). The amounts change continuously, as the figure is based on established amounts registered in OWNRES which are updated with corrections that can be significant
Financial Impact TOR 1998-2008
600
500
400
Million
Euro 300
Total Member States
200
100
19981999200020012002200320042005200620072008
2.6. Conclusions
In its capacity as Authorising Officer, the Commission (DG Budget is the delegated Authorising Officer) monitors the establishment and recovery of TOR by Member States in various ways. The monitoring is carried out in partnership with different Commission departments, including the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) where OLAF has issued an associated Mutual Assistance message and/or has an operational interest in the case concerned.
Once a debt is established a Member State can only be discharged from the obligation to make the TOR available to the Commission because of force majeure or for reasons which cannot be attributed to the Member State concerned. As Member States are responsible for making TOR available to the EU Budget, should they wish to be released from their obligation in a particular instance they need to prove that one of these circumstances exists. Where debts are not established although they should have been, Member States are held liable for the TOR foregone (these cases are not registered in OWNRES). As a result Member States have been held financially liable for over 43 million in 2008 and have made available over 15 million. Some actions are still ongoing and new cases are being given appropriate follow-up.
Because of the particular interest the Budgetary Authority has in recovery, reliable information regarding the number of cases of irregularity and fraud and their development must be entered in OWNRES. Member States have a special responsibility to ensure that appropriate statistical information on irregularity and fraud is provided to the Commission. In 2007 Member States were requested to address the shortcomings in the registration in OWNRES of cases where no debt needed to be established (usually smuggled cigarettes), resulting in visible improvements in 2008.
Regarding the reliability of information in OWNRES, making a distinction between irregularity and fraud or analysing fraud separately is risky and the outcome is not very useful. Only court decisions make it certain whether a case is one of irregularity or fraud, whereas within OWNRES this distinction is usually based on a prognostication made by Member States' administrations. The figures in OWNRES showing marked differences in the proportions of cases denoted as frauds or irregularities between Member States point this out clearly. OWNRES can only be used for global analysis and monitoring.
procedure of release for free circulation (false declarations, formal shortcomings or simply smuggling), as in previous years.
The amounts of TOR at stake in irregularity and fraud are, according to OWNRES, up to 351 million in 2008. Of the amounts initially established, approximately 50%
is later cancelled and in the case of establishments related to Community Transit up to 90% of the established amount may be cancelled later. And payment is required only for the part which is not cancelled. The initial recovery figures for 2008 are comparable to those of previous years.
Analysis shows that certain particulars of a case may be used as indicators for forecasts of recovery. Cases related to fraud decrease the chance of successful recovery, whereas for instance cases related to MA communications may arrive at better results.
Member States are currently communicating an increased number of write-off cases, because of a change in legislation intended to clear the backlog of old cases dating back to before 2004. Based on the data available so far, it may be estimated that around 10% of the established amounts, equivalent to 20% of the final debts after all corrections, remain unpaid.
In conclusion, it appears that of the amounts initially established around 40% is actually recovered, 10% is written off and 50% is cancelled. After further harmonising the methods of registration and the processing of the backlogs in write- offs, further fine-tuning of this percentage may be expected.
The Commission encourages Member States to continue their activities in the field of recovery and providing statistical information. The Budgetary Authority is entitled to have available the best possible information when monitoring TOR and recovery issues.
PART II - EXPENDITURE
-
3.AGRICULTURAL EXPENDITURE (ANNEXES 11-12)
Introduction of a new reporting system
In 2008, a new irregularity reporting system was introduced: Pre-IMS Module 1848. The abbreviation IMS stands for Irregularity Management System. Module 1848 is a web based application which implies that it can be accessed via internet. Member States however, still need to use AFIS (Anti Fraud Information System) to get access to Pre-IMS Module 1848. AFIS is a secured network provided by the Commission. Access via internet is foreseen for summer 2009. Pre-IMS Module 1848 will then be renamed into IMS Module 1848. The reporting module itself will not change.
Germany is already using IMS Module 1848 to submit irregularities. Users in Germany get access to Module 1848 via a secured internet connection. It is a pilot which offers the possibility to test all features of the web based application. The results of the pilot will be used to improve and fine tune IMS Module 1848 before it will be officially released for all users in all Member States. A pilot is an effort demanding activity for all involved parties but especially for the Member State involved. Germany offered great support during 2008.
In June 2008, trainers of all Member States (EU-27) attended a 2-day-training in OLAF to get acquainted and familiar with the new reporting module. The Member States' trainers will train the users in the Member States. A maximum of 4 trainers per Member State attended the training.
Module 1848 was officially launched on 7 November 2008.
The introduction of a new reporting system leads always to some starting-up problems. This counts for the users in the Member States as well as the developers and users on the side of the Commission. The year 2008 should therefore, be seen as a transition year: users needed to get familiar with Module 1848.
General introduction
The analysis is a descriptive analysis based on the communications forwarded by Member States under Commission Regulation (EC) No. 1848/2006 in the budget year 2008. The budget year 2008 runs from 16 October 2007 15 October 2008.
It should be noted that not all irregularities have to be reported. Under Reg. 1848/2006, Member States must only inform the Commission of irregularities involving more than EUR 10,000.
The threshold of EUR 10,000 was introduced by Reg. 1848/2006 that came into force on 1 January 2007. Reg. 1848/2006 replaced Reg. 595/91. Under Reg. 595/91, the threshold was EUR 4,000. The increase of the threshold from EUR 4,000 to EUR 10,000 has to be taken into account when this report is compared with reports of years before 2007. The number of reported irregularities in 2008 is approximately one-third (1/3) of the number of reported irregularities before 2007. The descriptive analysis of this report therefore, cannot be right away compared with the results of previous years.
The expectation is that the number of reported irregularities will decrease even more in the coming years. A rather large amount of subsidies (per beneficiary and per support measure) is below EUR 10,000 therefore, irregularities for these cases will never exceed the threshold of EUR 10,000.
Member States reported 1,142 new irregularities under Reg. 1848/2006 compared with 1,577 irregularities in 2007. During 2008, Member States reclassified 9 of these irregularities as non-irregularities. The total number of new irregularities is therefore 1,133
-
49.The total amount affected in 2008 was about EUR 102 million, as against
approximately EUR 155 million in 2007.
Irregularities notified in this sector represent 0.21% of the agricultural budget. Annex 11 provides an overview of the financial impact for the period 2000 - 2008.
The main purpose of forwarding information is to enable the Commission to perform risk analyses (see art. 10 Reg. 1848/2006
50). For that purpose, OLAF needs to
receive reliable, consistent and complete data and as early as possible (timely!).
Table AG1 contains an overview of the compliance rate per reporting obligation. Member States are ranked in order of compliance. The table focuses on reporting obligations that have a high added value for analysis purposes. The letters above the columns refer to the reporting obligations of Art. 3(1) of Reg. 1848/2006. The third column from the right hand side shows the compliance rate per Member State for the budget year 2008. The second column from the right hand side contains the 2007 compliance rates to make it possible to make a comparison between 2008 and 2007.
Cyprus and Romania had no irregularities to report and are therefore considered to be 100% compliant. The rates of Cyprus and Romania have not been taken into account to calculate the EU-27 compliance rate.
Table AG1: compliance per Member State year 2008
table AG1
COMPLIANCE
budget year 2008
timelypersonalmeasuredatepracticesfinancial
reportingdataaffectedcommittedemployedimpactcompliance
MS MS
(who)(what)(when)(how)(why)
laie, fn20082007
CY120%97%CY
RO110%RO
LV100%100%100%100%100%100%100%85%LV
MT100%100%100%100%100%100%100%MT
SI100%100%100%100%100%100%100%96%SI
IE95%100%100%100%100%95%98%64%IE
PL91%100%97%91%100%100%97%83%PL
PT80%100%100%100%100%99%97%72%PT
FR89%99%100%93%99%98%96%90%FR
BE97%100%97%97%95%94%96%74%BE
ES95%85%100%100%93%100%96%49%ES
EE100%100%69%100%100%100%95%81%EE
UK71%100%100%100%95%100%94%88%UK
BG100%100%67%100%100%100%94%BG
CZ73%100%98%100%98%95%94%90%CZ
15 Member States have a compliance rate above 90%. 7 Member States have a compliance rate between 80% and 90% as 3 Member States has a compliance rate below 80%
..
Germany and Finland could improve their compliance rate by reporting personal data. The non-reporting of personal data led to a relatively low compliance rate.
Slovakia is the Member State with the lowest compliance rate: 74%. Slovakia could improve its compliance rate by reporting more timely and by indicating in more detail the support measure affected by the irregularity.
The compliance improved strongly in comparison with 2007. It went up from 78% to 92%. Member States that made a big step forward are Spain (+47%), Germany (+40%), Ireland (+34%), Portugal (+25%) and the Netherlands (+23%). Some Member States had a small setback and need to pay some extra attention to their compliance.
Overall compliance rate is 92% (2007: 78%).
3.1.1. Timely reporting (Art. 3(1) Reg. 1848/2006)
2008 was a transition year: Module 1848 replaced Module 595. The reporting format changed completely therefore cases reported via Module 595 needed to be transferred into "1848-format". This took place in the period April 2008 October 2008. During that period, Member States could not submit communications via the electronic reporting system. The latter had to be taken into account when the compliance rate for timely reporting was determined. Normally, Member States would have forwarded in 2008 cases discovered in 2008 and late 2007. To determine the level of compliance, all cases discovered (PACA)
51 in 2007 and 2008 were
considered as being reported on time. Cases discovered before 2007 were considered
as reported too late.
Member State reported 133 cases (11.7%) too late. Austria especially is late with the reporting of cases. 12 cases (60%) were already discovered in 2002. Sweden had also difficulties to report timely, only 20% of its cases were reported timely
Expenditure is based on the appropriations for a given year. As far as the EAGF53
and EAFRD54 are concerned, the budget year does not coincide with the calendar
year. Therefore, Member States should indicate the budget year as well as the appropriation in their communications so that the correct support measure (budget line) affected by the irregularity can be identified.
Each support measure is based on a budget line therefore it should be no problem to indicate the appropriate budget year and budget line. All paying agencies can provide the reporting authorities with the necessary information.
A large number (12) of Member States comply fully (100%) with the obligation to indicate the common market organisations affected, the sectors and products concerned. 6 Member States have a compliance rate higher than 90%. For all other 7 Member States
55, attention needs to be paid to indicating the budget year and the
measure affected.
Member States reported 61 cases (5.4%) in which the expenditure took place before 2000. It concerns mainly cases from Austria, Greece and Italy with 19, 11 respectively 15 cases
56.
Member States with a low compliance rate are Lithuania (25%) and Slovakia (24%).
The EU-27 compliance rate is 93% (2007: 86%).
3.1.3. The moment at which the irregularity was committed (Art. 3(1) (i) Reg. 1848/2006)
Member States are obliged to indicate the period during which or the moment at which the irregularity was committed. Member States indicated in 97% of the cases the date at or period during which the irregularity was committed. A large number (18) of Member States fully complied with this obligation. All other Member States have a compliance rate higher than 90%.
The EU-27 compliance rate is 97% (2007: 86%).
to use a code of one of the clusters. Member States should use for these cases also the text field to explain how the irregularity was committed. Unfortunately, that was not the case for a large number of these cases.
As already mentioned, Module 1848 offers the possibility to use written text to describe more precisely the practices employed (modus operandi). The added value of describing the modus operandi in words is rather high. It provides a more in-depth insight. A more precise description of the irregularity helps to improve the quality of the analysis therefore Member States are requested to forward more detailed information on the modus operandi. Copying the findings of the audit report directly into the reporting module would already improve the quality of the reporting. More and more Member States make use of this facility and describe in more detail the practises employed in committing the irregularity.
Art. 3 (1) (f) Reg. 1848/2006 obliges Member States to indicate if the practice amounts to a suspected fraud or not. Member States classified approximately 93% of the reported cases, of which 7% (78 cases) were classified as "suspicion of fraud" or "established fraud"
57.
22 Member States classified all cases. Germany and Spain did not classify cases in respectively 36% (40 cases) and 16% (38 cases) of their cases. The Netherlands did not classify 2 cases (7%).
The EU-27 compliance rate is 93% (2007: 74%).
3.1.5. Legal/natural persons identification (Art. 3 (1) (l) Reg. 1848/2006)
Member States are also required to give detailed information on the identity of the natural and legal persons involved.
The added value of personal data for performing risk analyses is high. Irregularities and frauds are committed by persons and not by products, support measures or budget lines, therefore, it is necessary to know the person behind the irregularity.
3.1.6. Financial impact (Art. 3 (1) (n) Reg. 1848/2006)
Member States reported 1,133 cases. The amount affected by irregularities was indicated in 1,118 cases, which is 99%. Only in a small number of cases, the amounts affected by irregularities could not (yet) be indicated.
Member States do not always indicate the total amount of expenditure on the operation at issue and, where appropriate, the distribution of its co-financing between Community, national, private and other contributions although a clear obligation to report this information can be found in art. 3(1) m Reg. 1848/2006. This obligation will be taken into account in next years report.
The EU-27 compliance rate is 99% (2007: 96%).
3.2. General Trends
This analysis is a descriptive analysis, the aim of which is to provide feedback to the Member States on the communications that were received by the Commission in the budget year 2008 and to give an overall view for the period 1971 - 2008.
One should bear in mind that Member States must only inform the Commission of irregularities involving more than EUR 10,000.
3.2.1. Amounts affected
Table AG2 provides an overview per Member State of the irregularities reported and the amounts affected by these irregularities in the budget year 2008.
Table AG2: Irregularities reported in the budget year 2008
Table AG2
irregularities reported and amounts affected
budget year 2008
casesamounts in
MSreportedno irregularityirregularitytotalamount affecteddetecteddetectedMS
(IRQ 0)expenditureby irregularitybefore paymentafter payment
AT21120341,716311,60826,548285,060AT
BE31 313,965,6981,605,69011,3731,605,137BE
BG2 2144,336119,470119,470 BG
CY CY
CZ24222784,573764,680 780,024CZ
DE111 11113,071,4883,816,7711,129,1282,699,404DE
DK10 10463,671445,241246,595198,646DK
EE13 13408,189278,131 278,131EE
EL434394,010,0464,010,046 4,010,046EL
ES245 24534,405,60314,924,635695,41014,229,225ES
FI8 8983,842983,842863,259120,583FI
FR129 129179,078,47511,763,441352,16511,411,276FR
HU6 6255,826747,522 747,522HU
IE22 22416,234397,497 397,497IE
IT211 211109,105,75253,969,74043,79553,990,037IT
LT24 241,815,034803,754680,201123,553LT
LU1 113,37513,375 13,375LU
LV13 13208,144208,144 208,144LV
MT1 137,81437,814 37,814MT
NL30 305,932,7861,183,639150,6921,032,947NL
PL46 461,554,5991,126,137778,272347,863PL
PT121112010,213,2563,629,92826,2033,603,725PT
RO RO
SE11110693,386214,06535,321178,744SE
Member States which reported the highest number of cases in 2008 were Spain, Italy, Portugal and Germany with 245, 211, 120 and 111 cases respectively.
In monetary terms, Italy reported the highest amounts affected by irregularities, more than EUR 54 million, followed by Spain which reported a total amount of approximately EUR 15 million. Italy reported 1 case for the sector "fruits and vegetables" in which the total amount affected was approximately EUR 25 million.
The number of reported cases decreased in 2008 by approximately 28% compared with 2007. The decrease can be partly explained by the coming into force of Reg. 1848/2006 and the introduction of the new threshold of EUR 10,000. In 2007, the decrease was more than 50%
61.
In 2008, the amounts affected by reported irregularities decreased with 34% to approximately 102 million. It should however, be taken into account that the amount affected by irregularities is still higher than in the period 2004 2006.
Chart AG1 reflects these trends (see also annex 11).
Chart AG1: Irregularities communicated by Member States (1971-2008)
4,000500
3,500450
400
3,000
350
n s
2,500
300
si l l i o
m
2,000250
C as e
i n
1,500200n t s
o u
150A m
1,000
100
500
50
7 12
7 3478
7 92
8 3462
9 346
9 8 1 2 346
19
1 97
1 9
1 97
1 97 5
7 6
1 9
1 97
1 97
1 9
1 98 8 1
1 9
1 98
1 9
1 98
1 98 5
8 7
8 89
19 8
1 9
1 9
1 98
1 99 9 1
1 9
1 99
1 9
1 99
1 99 5
9 7
1 99
1 9
1 9
1 99 9
2 2 2 2 2 2 5 7 8
3.2.2. Impact on the budget
The total expenditure is approximately EUR 48.6 billion62. Table AG3 provides an
overview of the total expenditure in 2008 per budget chapter.
Table AG3: Expenditure and irregularities per budget chapter
Table AG3
EXPENDITURE AND IRREGULARITIES PER BUDGET CHAPTER
budget year 2008
budget total amounttotal amountirregularity
chapterdescriptionexpenditureirregularityin % of
in in expenditure
050208Fruit and vegetables1,144,640,28039,760,1333.474%
050405Rural development (EAGF) (2000 to 2006)6,094,061,03418,413,6470.302%
050404Rural development (EAGF) (2004-2006) transitional instrument new MS454,286,155991,1100.218%
050401Rural development (EAFRD) (2007 to 2013)-11,139,905257,735-2.314%
050209Products of the wine-growing sector1,095,054,04012,715,8321.161%
050206Olive oil45,144,0305,182,75311.480%
050205Sugar494,476,3194,082,7080.826%
050212Milk and milk products147,095,7193,758,3822.555%
050201Cereals48,982,3563,708,3067.571%
050213Beef and veal46,975,7542,893,5696.160%
050215Pigmeat, eggs and poultry, bee-keeping and other animal products258,766,4742,086,9400.806%
050211Other plant products/measures375,132,8681,309,8530.349%
050301Decoupled direct aids31,419,056,4521,206,6840.004%
050302Other direct aid5,631,638,059905,3560.016%
050214Sheepmeat and goatmeat536,467
050203Non-Annex 1 products118,115,879407,2640.345%
050204Food programmes323,924,980286,5470.088%
050210Promotion49,411,56165,2230.132%
050216Sugar restructuring fund1,285,984,432
050303Additional amounts of aid532,953,260
050207Textile plants20,912,415
050701Audit - Control of agricultural expenditure13,376,669
670300Superlevy from milk producers - Assigned revenue-44,853,191
670200EAGF irregularities - Assigned revenue-114,874,340
670100Clearance of EAGF accounts - Assigned revenue-198,483,323
680100Temporary restructuring amounts - Assigned revenue-602,030,989
050202Rice
050402Completion of the EAGGF Guidance Section, completion of Leader
050702Audit - Settlement of disputes
680200revenue
combicombination of different support measues1,079,798
blankno information provided by Member States2,611,057
total48,628,606,986102,259,3650.210%
download 19 March 2009
amount irregularity updated 6 May 2009 (HU-correction)
source "total amount of expenditure": CATS-database (31 March 2009)
and "products of the wine-growing sector (050209) with a total amount affected of EUR 39.8 million, EUR 18.4 respectively EUR 12.7 million.
In percentage of the total expenditure per budget chapter, the highest amounts were reported for the budget chapter concerning "olive oil" (050206) with 11.5%.
Table AG4 shows the relationship, in percentages, between the total amount allocated per Member State, the total amount affected by irregularities per Member States and the total number of irregularities per Member State.
Table AG4: Expenditure and irregularities per Member State
Table AG4
EXPENDITURE AND IRREGULARITIES PER MS
budget year 2008
expenditureirregularitiesirregularities
MSin % oftotalin % ofin % of totalin % of
totaltotalamounttotal amountMS'casestotal casesMS
expenditureaffectedaffectedexpenditurereported
FR9,715,529,16020.0%11,763,44111.5%0.12%12911.4%FR
DE6,344,224,32013.0%3,816,7713.7%0.06%1119.8%DE
ES6,261,663,42212.9%14,924,63514.6%0.24%24521.6%ES
IT5,603,988,85711.5%53,969,74052.8%0.96%21118.6%IT
UK3,565,614,3017.3%225,7750.2%0.01%70.6%UK
EL2,687,254,3935.5%4,010,0463.9%0.15%393.4%EL
PL2,414,751,6815.0%1,126,1371.1%0.05%464.1%PL
IE1,786,625,5123.7%397,4970.4%0.02%221.9%IE
DK1,123,719,4532.3%445,2410.4%0.04%100.9%DK
AT1,114,613,9712.3%311,6080.3%0.03%201.8%AT
NL1,035,364,9762.1%1,183,6391.2%0.11%302.6%NL
PT974,366,0332.0%3,629,9283.5%0.37%12010.6%PT
SE941,831,2321.9%214,0650.2%0.02%100.9%SE
HU900,016,6061.9%747,5220.7%0.08%60.5%HU
FI787,088,8261.6%983,8421.0%0.12%80.7%FI
BE756,952,2111.6%1,605,6901.6%0.21%312.7%BE
CZ688,544,9201.4%764,6800.7%0.11%221.9%CZ
RO474,789,7731.0%RO
SK332,392,0680.7%639,6130.6%0.19%111.0%SK
LT313,730,4550.6%803,7540.8%0.26%242.1%LT
BG231,447,6780.5%119,4700.1%0.05%20.2%BG
LV197,702,9850.4%208,1440.2%0.11%131.1%LV
SI182,119,7250.4%38,8080.0%0.02%10.1%SI
EE89,853,6420.2%278,1310.3%0.31%131.1%EE
CY55,603,0030.1%CY
LU43,844,7380.1%13,3750.0%0.03%10.1%LU
MT4,973,0440.0%37,8140.0%0.76%10.1%MT
total48,628,606,986100.0%102,259,365100.0%0.21%1,133100.0%total
Some Member States report (far) more irregularities than others. Portugal for instance, reports approximately the same number of cases as France, 120 cases respectively 129 cases. France however, receives 10 times as much as Portugal from the agricultural-budget. France received EUR 9.715 billion as Portugal received EUR
0.974 billion.
Also of interest is the level of reported irregularities as a percentage of agricultural- expenditure per Member State. Italy has the highest percentage with 0.96%, followed by Malta and Portugal with 0.76%, and 0.37% respectively. Rather low are the percentages of United Kingdom, Slovenia, Ireland and Sweden with 0.01%, 0.02%, 0.02% respectively 0.02%. Annex 12 gives an overview of these percentages.
Spain and Portugal reported also in the period 2004-2007 a relatively high number of irregularities as well as a relatively high amount affected by irregularities.
3.2.3. Method of detection
Controls by national authorities63
Under the common agricultural policy, according to the principle of shared management, the Member States are responsible for paying the agricultural subsidies to the final beneficiaries through paying agencies
64, accredited by the competent
authorities of the Member States. They are responsible in particular for checking the admissibility of claims and compliance with EU rules before payment.
For each aid scheme, the relevant sector regulations lay down detailed rules on checks to be carried out by the paying agencies or by delegated bodies operating under their supervision.
All aid applications are subject to administrative checks before any payment is made.
On-the-spot checks are carried out on a sample basis which normally ranges between 5% and 100%, depending on the risk in the sector concerned.
Member States must send to the Commission the annual accounts of each paying agency, accompanied by a statement of assurance signed by the paying agency's director. The statement of assurance may be qualified by reservations, which must quantify their financial impact. In that case, it must include a remedial action plan and a precise timetable for its implementation. The statement of assurance must be based on an effective supervision of the management and control system in place throughout the year.
Member States with more than one paying agency must also draw up at the end of the financial year an annual summary report (synthesis) covering the statements of assurance and certificates issued by the certification bodies. Coming on the top of the statements of assurance and certification, this is designed to strengthen the chain of responsibility between the Member States and the Commission.
Controls by the Commission65
The Commission verifies, firstly, the completeness, accuracy and veracity of the paying agencies' accounts (clearance of accounts) and, secondly, mostly by means of on-the-spot audits, whether the expenditure has been effected by Member States in conformity with the Community rules. Where this is not the case, it excludes the expenditure concerned from Community financing (financial corrections). This latter mechanism, called "conformity clearance", has over the years proven to be a very effective means of protecting the Community's financial interest.
Conformity clearance shields the Community budget from expenditure which should not be charged to it. It is not a mechanism by which irregular payments to final beneficiaries are recovered, something which, according to the principle of shared management, is the sole responsibility of the Member States. Its purpose is to examine the management and control systems implemented by the Member States and to recover from national authorities any expenditure which is not in conformity with Community law. Financial corrections are determined on the basis of the nature and gravity of the infringement and the financial damage caused to the Community. The amount is calculated on the basis of the loss actually caused or on the basis of an extrapolation. Where this is not possible, flat-rates are used which take account of the severity of the deficiencies in order to reflect the financial risk for the Community. In the calendar year 2008 the Commission excluded approximately EUR 1,022 million from Community financing under the EAGF and the EAFRD
clearance thereby contributes to the legality and regularity of transactions at the level of the final beneficiaries.
Irregularity reports
Member States are not only required to follow irregular payments up by recovery actions but are also obliged to submit irregularity reports. In these reports, Member States are required to indicate the manner in which the irregularity was discovered. Member States provide detailed information on the reason why an audit, check or scrutiny was performed and how it was performed.
Table AG5 gives an overview why a control was performed as table AG6 gives an overview how the control was performed.
In the European Union, all IACS aid applications are processed and checked administratively. These checks are complemented by on-the-spot controls, selected on the basis of risk analysis. In the budget year 2008, approximately 87.5% of agricultural expenditure under EAGF was processed through IACS.
Member States indicated that in 56 cases (2007: 54 cases) the irregularity was discovered thanks to a check or audit performed on basis of IACS. This is approximately 5% of the total number of reported irregularities (1,133).
In 54 cases, Member States did not indicate the reason why an audit, check or scrutiny was performed, which is also approximately 5% of the total amount of reported irregularities (1,133).
Member States are also under an obligation to perform certain controls on the basis of Council Regulation (EEC) No 485/2008
67 and Council Regulation (EEC) No
386/90.
Council Regulation (EEC) No 485/2008 relates to the scrutiny of the commercial documents of entities receiving or making payments relating directly or indirectly to the system of financing by the EAGF in order to ascertain whether transactions forming part of the system of financing by the EAGF have actually been carried out and have been executed correctly.
Table AG5
DETECTION OF THE IRREGULARITY
budget year 2008
reason for performing a control, audit, scrutiny etc.alone*)shared**)totalin %
administrative enquiry2193625523%
other occasions (described in field 5.8.)1478022720%
scrutiny on basis of Reg. 485/2008 (replaced 4045/1989)1452817315%
routine1031611911%
judicial enquiry799888%
random check831847%
comparison of data1068787%
scrutiny on basis of Reg. 3508/1992 & 1782/2003 (IACS)497565%
risk analysis317383%
information and/or request from EU-body712192%
tip from informant, whistleblower, etc.134172%
chance12 121%
review of conditions102121%
spontaneous confession82101%
control on basis of Reg. 386/19908 81%
complaint2350%
probability checks1450%
release of guarantee5 50%
refusal to accept controls2 20%
existing doubts2 20%
payment of balance1120%
information published in the media1 10%
suspicious conduct1 10%
statistical analysis 110%
no information provided by Member States55 555%
total9942811275
*) alone = only 1 reason for performing a control etc. was indicated
**) shared = more than 1 reason for performing a control etc.was indicated
Art. 3(1) g Reg. 1848/2006
download 19 March 2009 / updated 6 May 2009 (HU-correction)
Administrative enquiry was in 255 cases (23%), the reason for performing a control, audit or scrutiny.
In 227 cases (20%) Member States indicated "other occasions". Unfortunately, Member States only described in 27 cases what the other occasion was.
Table AG6
DETECTION OF THE IRREGULARITY
budget year 2008
type of control, audit, scrutiny etc.alone*)shared**)totalin %
control of documents2146327724%
ex post control2021922120%
control on the premises of the company1175517215%
control of accounts932411710%
other methods (described in field 5.8.)96 968%
analysis of samples516575%
on the spot control of achievement of project or action54 545%
face vet / documentary check333363%
initial enquiry211222%
other Customs controls, checks, audits, scrutinies etc.46101%
preventive check4 40%
control of production2130%
control of products2130%
physical check of goods2 20%
control of product in intervention2 20%
other controls, checks etc. concerning production or products1 10%
control of movement 110%
teledetection 0%
border control 0%
no information provided by Member States157 15714%
total1,0551801,235
*) alone = only 1 type of control etc. was indicated
**) shared = more than 1 type of control etc.was indicated
Art. 3(1) g Reg. 1848/2006
download 19 March 2009 / updated 6 May 2009 (HU-correction)
As in 2007, teledetection did not lead to the discovery of any irregularities.
3.2.4. Types of irregularity
Member States are also obliged to report and to describe the practices employed (modus operandi) of the detected irregularity (see art. 3(1)e Reg. 1848/2006). A clear overview of the (most recently used) modus operandi in committing irregularities will support the Member States and the Commission in their fight against fraud and help to reduce the number of irregularities.
Table AG7
TYPE OF IRREGULARITY PER GROUP
budget year 2008
cases
groupdescriptionnumber *)in %amount in *)in %
1100request for aid20118%12,366,98712%
1200beneficiary474%2,424,3322%
1300accounts and records121%602,9391%
1400documentary proof19918%9,511,4379%
1500product, species and/or land24722%14,169,35614%
1600(non-)action44940%63,553,94762%
1700customs - movement of goods161%1,151,3041%
1800bankruptcy / bribes / corruption20%644,2531%
1900other706%4,457,0544%
no information provided by Member States30%491,6960%
total *)1,246109,373,306
Art. 3(1)g Reg. 1848/2006
*) an irregularity report can contain sometimes more than 1 type of irregularity therefore total amounts can be higher than the real number of cases and real total amount affected by irregularities
download 19 March 2009 / updated 6 May 2009 (HU-correction)
Only in 3 cases (<1%), no type of irregularity was indicated. It concerns 2 cases reported by Hungary and 1 case reported by Greece.
In 70 cases, Member States indicated "other irregularities, to be specified". Finland indicated "other irregularities, to be specified" in more than 60% of its cases. In 2007, Finland reported also in more than 60% of its cases "other irregularities". The added value of the indication "other irregularities, to be specified" is rather low. Finland should pay some attention to this reporting obligation.
Group 1100 request for aid
In 18% of the reported irregularities it concerned cases in which the irregularity was already committed during the request phase. As example, can be mentioned an "incorrect or incomplete request for aid". These cases could normally be discovered before payment.
Member States indicated in all cases (100%) if an irregularity took place before payment or after payment. Discovered before payment means that no payment has been made, therefore, no recovery action has to be undertaken. Discovered after payment means that the beneficiary received the subsidy and that the unduly paid amount needs to be recovered.
Table AG8
TYPE OF IRREGULARITY - REQUEST FOR AID
budget year 2008
before paymentafter payment
codedescriptioncasesamounts in casesamounts in
1100incorrect or incomplete request for aid10232,59325840,593
1101false or falsified request for aid227,20410637,048
1102product, species, project and/or activity not eligible for aid7193,629754,471,922
1103incompatible cumulation of aid284,015
1104several requests for the same product, species, project and/or activity243,238
1199other irregularities concerning the request for aid4126,425645,698,946
total *)23579,85117811,775,762
Art. 3(1)e Reg. 1848/2006
*) an irregularity report can sometimes contain more than 1 type of irregularity, therefore, total amounts can be higher than the real number of cases and real total amount affected by irregularities
download 19 March 2009 / updated 6 May 2009 (HU-correction)
In 35 cases, Member States described the type of irregularity as "incorrect or incomplete request for aid". Despite the incorrect or incomplete request for aid, Member States granted in more than 70% of these cases the subsidy.
Denmark, Germany, Spain and Italy indicated in respectively 3, 1, 1 and 7 cases that the applied modus operandi was "false or falsified request for aid". Germany classified its 2 cases as "established fraud (IRQ5) as Spain classified its case as "suspicion of fraud". All other 9 cases were classified as irregularity (IRQ2).
Group 1400 documentary proof
Table AG7 showed that in 199 cases (18%) the irregularity concerned documentary proof. The largest amount (95 cases) concerns "documents missing and/or not provided". This type of irregularity can normally be considered as an error or mistake which can be repaired. Almost all of these cases are classified as "irregularity"
(IRQ2). Only for 2 cases count that Member States classified the irregularity as "suspicion of fraud" (IRQ3). In these 2 cases, more than 1 type of irregularity was indicated.
Member States indicated in 12 cases, with a total amount affected of EUR 1.4 million that it concerned "documents false and/or falsified". 7 of these cases were classified as "suspicion of fraud" (IRQ3) as 4 cases were classified as "irregularity"
(IRQ2). 1 case was not classified.
Member States reported in 63 cases "incorrect classification (incl. incorrect tariff heading)". These cases concern mainly the export of pig- and poultry meat. Member States classified 61 of these cases as "irregularity" (IRQ2). 2 cases were not classified.
In 23 cases, Member States classified the cases as "suspicion of fraud" (IRQ3). It concerned in 21 cases "overdeclaration and/or declaration of fictitious land".
Group 1600 (non-) action
In almost 40% of the reported irregularities it concerned cases in which the irregularity was directly linked to an action performed or not performed by the involved persons. For most cases counts, that the beneficiary did not make the deadline to implement, complete or finalise the action.
Table AG9: Type of irregularity (non) action
Table AG9
TYPE OF IRREGULARITY - (NON-)ACTION
budget year 2008
cases
codedescriptionnumberamount in
1600action not implemented371,265,776
1601action not completed301,938,278
1602operation prohibited during the measure301,173,291
1603failure to respect deadlines485,928,640
1604irregular termination, sale or reduction231,225,013
1605absence of identification, marking, etc.
1606refusal of control, audit, scrutiny etc.337,364
1607control, audit, scrutiny etc. not carried out in accordance with regulations, rules, plan etc.3487,776
1608infringement of rules concerned with public procurement
1609infringements with regard to the cofinancing system342,141
1610other actions not carried out in accordance with regulations, rules, contract conditions, etc.27451,455,668
total *)45163,553,947
Art. 3(1)e Reg. 1848/2006
download 19 March 2009 / updated 6 May 2009 (HU-correction)
In a rather high number of cases (274), Member States indicated "other actions not carried out in accordance with regulations, rules, contract conditions, etc." The total amount affected is EUR 51.5 million. It concerns in 113 cases the rural development sector. The total amount affected is EUR 4.3 million. Member States reported 32 cases for the fruits and vegetables sector and 23 cases for the wine growing sector. The amounts affected for these 2 sectors are respectively EUR 33.2 million and EUR 8 million.
3.3. Specific Analysis
Member States inform the Commission of the common market organisations affected, the sectors and products concerned by irregularities. The new reporting Module 1848 offers Member States the possibility to use the official DG AGRI nomenclature to indicate the budget lines affected by the irregularities.
3.3.1. Analysis of support measures
Table AG10 gives an overview of the irregularities reported per main category of support measure. The division into the different types of measures is based on the indications given by Member States of the measures affected, regulations infringed and modus operandi.
Table AG 10: Irregularities per main category of support measure
Table AG10
IRREGULARITIES PER BUDGET CHAPTER
BUDGET YEAR 2008
averagein % of
groupdescriptioncasesamounts in amounts in total
050208Fruits and vegetables9239,760,133432,17538.9%
050401Rural development (EAFRD) (2007 to 2013)12257,73521,4780.3%
050404Rural development (EAGF) (2004-2006) transitional instrument new MS641,357,84221,2161.3%
050405Rural development (EAGF) (2000 to 2006)36118,413,64751,00718.0%
050209Products of the wine-growing sector13812,715,83292,14412.4%
050206Olive oil385,225,808137,5215.1%
050205Sugar344,391,995129,1764.3%
050212Milk and milk products593,992,47767,6693.9%
050201Cereals393,838,61798,4263.8%
050213Beef and veal563,176,03256,7153.1%
050215Pigmeat, eggs and poultry, bee-keeping and other animal products632,138,05233,9372.1%
050301Direct aids of a horizontal nature651,585,97724,4001.6%
050211Other plant products/measures281,309,85346,7801.3%
050302Other direct aids361,215,33033,7591.2%
050203Refunds on non-Annex 1 products12643,54353,6290.6%
050214Sheepmeat and goatmeat18631,91535,1060.6%
050204Food programmes3329,602109,8670.3%
050303Additional amounts of aid267,03633,5180.1%
050210Promotion and information measures265,22332,6110.1%
blankno information provided by Member States572,611,05745,8082.6%
art. 3 (1) a, n Reg. 1848/2006
download 19 March 2009 / updated 6 May 2009 (HU-correction)
As in 2007, the sector "fruits and vegetables" (group 050208) scores high. Member States reported 92 cases involving approximately EUR 39.8 million, which is almost 39% of the total amount affected by irregularities. Italy reported 1 case in which the total amount affected was approximately EUR 25 million.
ˇ rural development 20%
ˇ wine 12%
Fruit and vegetables (group 050208)
Table AG11 shows the measures which were hit by irregularities, indicating the number of cases, the total amounts and the average amount per irregularity.
Table AG 11: Fruit and vegetables: measures affected by irregularities
Table AG11
FRUITS AND VEGETABLES
BUDGET YEAR 2008
descriptioncasesamounts in average
Compensation to encourage processing of citrus fruits2227,634,0431,256,093
Compensation and buying-in - lemons55,672,2341,134,447
Production aid for processed tomato products123,061,956255,163
Operational funds for producer organisations382,347,18461,768
Compensation aid - bananas6532,74788,791
Production aid for fruit-based products4337,80484,451
Aid to producer groups for preliminary recognition389,70029,900
Export refunds - fresh fruits & vegetables152,67852,678
Special measures for nuts131,78731,787
total9239,760,133432,175
art. 3 (1) a, n Reg. 1848/2006
download 19 March 2009
Member States reported a total of 92 cases affecting measures to support the fruit and vegetables sector. These cases alone add up to approximately EUR 39.8 million, which is approximately 39% of the total amount affected by irregularities.
France and Italy reported 3 cases in which the total amount affected by the irregularity was more than EUR 1 million per case. Italy reported 2 cases of which 1 case had a total amount affected of more than EUR 25 million and concerned the support measure "compensation to encourage processing of citrus fruits".
In recent years, Member States have consistently reported a relatively high amount affected by irregularities for the measure "compensation to encourage processing of citrus fruits". In 2008, Member States reported fewer irregularities concerning citrus fruits. The amounts increased but mainly due to 1 Italian case of more than EUR 25 million. The 22 cases were reported by two (2) Member States. Italy reported 2 cases with a total amount affected of EUR 25.3 million as Spain reported the other 20 cases with a total amount affected of EUR 2.3 million. All cases were classified as "irregularity" (IRQ2).
Member States classified in 89 cases (97%) the irregularities as irregularity or as (suspected) fraud.
The reported level of (suspected or established) fraud is 3.5%.
Rural development (group 0504)
Member States reported a total of 437 cases affecting rural development measures. 425 cases concerned EAGF
69 as 12 cases concerned EAFRD. These cases alone
amount to approximately EUR 20 million, which is approximately 19.6% of the total amount affected by irregularities (see table AG10).
Table AG12 shows the measures that were mostly affected by irregularities, indicating the number of cases, the total amounts and average amount per irregularity.
Table AG 12: Rural development: measures affected by irregularities
Table AG12
RURAL DEVELOPMENT
BUDGET YEAR 2008
descriptioncasesamounts in average
agrienvironment1002,460,35824,604
forestry794,554,85057,656
transitional instrument for the new Member States641,357,84221,216
promoting the adaptation and the development of rural areas512,919,64657,248
improving the processing and marketing of agricultural products455,012,609111,391
setting-up of young farmers31341,23211,007
reimbursement not related to irregularities16390,28924,393
investments in agricultural holdings141,981,495141,535
EAFRD - rural development12257,73521,478
early retirement scheme11327,85329,805
less favoured areas4142,78135,695
other - not specified10282,53428,253
total43720,029,22445,833
art. 3 (1) a, n Reg. 1848/2006
download 19 March 2009
The largest number of irregularities related to "agrienvironment". Member States reported 100 cases in which the support measure "agrienvironment" was affected by irregularities. The average amounts affected per case are rather low.
not able to make the deadlines. It concerns in all cases Spanish beneficiaries. Member States classified more than 91% (72) of the forestry cases as "irregularity"
or "suspicion of fraud". Spain did not classify 6 cases as Germany did not classify 1 case. Spain classified 2 cases as "suspicion of fraud". The practices adopted for these 2 cases can be summarized as "false and/or falsified request for aid" and "operation prohibited during the measure".
The support measure "promoting the adaptation and the development of rural areas"
has also a rather high total amount affected by irregularities. The total amount affected is approximately EUR 2.9 million. The total number of reported cases is 51. Most frequently applied modus operandi is "over declaration" and/or "fictitious declaration" of land. Member States classified 3 cases as "suspicion of fraud" (IRQ3)
as all other cases were classified as "irregularity" (IRQ2).
Member States reported 14 cases for the support measure "investments in agricultural holdings". The total amount affected was rather high: EUR 2 million. The latter was caused by 1 Italian case in which the total amount affected was more than EUR 1.5 million. Member States classified 10 of these cases as "irregularity"
(IRQ2), 1 case as "suspicion of fraud" (IRQ3) and 1 case as "established fraud" (IRQ5). 2 cases were not classified. It concerns Spanish cases. The modus operandi in the "suspicion of fraud" case concerns "false and/or falsified documents". The "established fraud" case concerned actions that were not carried out in accordance with the regulations and conditions under which the subsidy was granted.
The reported level of (suspected or established) fraud is 8.5%.
Wine (group 050209)
Member States reported a total of 138 cases affecting wine measures. These cases amount to approximately EUR 12.7 million. It concerns cases reported by Spain, Portugal, Italy, Greece and France with respectively 58, 44, 20, 11 and 5 cases. Table AG13 shows the measures that were mostly affected by irregularities, indicating the number of cases, the total amounts and average amount per irregularity.
Table AG13
WINE
BUDGET YEAR 2008
descriptioncasesamounts in average
permanent abandonment premiums17,245,007 7,245,007
restructuring and conversion of vine yards1153,048,47426,508
Member States reported 12 cases for the support measure "distillation". The total amount affected is approximately EUR 2 million. The applied modus operandi differs per case which makes it difficult to indicate a modus operandi that is occurring more frequently. None of these cases was classified as "suspicion of fraud"
(IRQ3) or "established fraud" (IRQ5).
The reported level of (suspected or established) fraud is 18.1%.
3.3.2. Irregularity versus suspected fraud
With the introduction of the electronic reporting system in mid-2001, Member States were asked to classify the irregularities reported. To assist them, an extra field was added to the module offering four possibilities: mistake, irregularity, (suspected) fraud and organised crime. The field was modified in 2004 and 2006 and now offers four possibilities:
ˇ IRQ 0 = no irregularity
ˇ IRQ 2 = irregularity
ˇ IRQ 3 = suspicion of fraud
ˇ IRQ 5 = established fraud
Reg. 1848/2006 introduced the obligation to identify fraud cases. Member States comply rather well with this obligation; the overall compliance rate is 93%. Germany and Spain should pay some extra attention to this obligation. The Netherlands did not classify 2 of its cases (7%). Table AG14 gives an overview of the classification of irregularities by Member States and by OLAF.
Table AG 14: Classification of irregularities by Member States
Table AG14
CLASSIFICATION OF THE IRREGULARITY
budget year 2008
fraud in %
MS totalIRQ2IRQ3IRQ5blankcompliance2008by OLAF2007MS
AT2020100%0%0%0%AT
BE31265100%16%16%0%BE
BG22100%100%100%BG
CY0%CY
CZ2222100%0%0%0%CZ
Fraud as a percentage of the total number of reported cases involved in irregularities is about 7%. The term fraud includes "suspicion of fraud" (IRQ3) and "established fraud" (IRQ5). The non-irregularities (IRQ0) have not been taken into account for the analysis. As mentioned earlier, Module 1848 was introduced in 2008 which implies that Member States needed to get used to the new reporting system, therefore the figures shown in the table should be treated with caution.
Fraud as a percentage of the total amount of reported cases affected by irregularities
is about 4%.
Classification of irregularities by OLAF
In the period 2000 2007 the percentage of irregularities classified as "suspected frauds" varied between 10% and 13% of the total number of irregularities reported.
In case OLAF would classify the 2008-irregularities by applying the same method as used for the period 2000 - 2007, the irregularities to be classified as "suspected frauds" would be 9% of the total number of reported irregularities and 10% of the total amount affected by irregularities.
The classification by OLAF is based on the classification by Member States, the types of irregularities (codes) as indicated by Member States, the modus operandi as described by the Member States, sanctions imposed (administrative or penal) and additional comments made by Member States.
The higher fraud rate can be explained by the reclassification of cases from Member States that did not classify any cases as "suspicion of fraud". The latter concerns mainly cases reported by Denmark and the United Kingdom. Some of the Danish, French, Italian and United Kingdom cases would be reclassified from "irregularity" (IRQ2) into "suspicion of fraud" (IRQ3), based on the modus operandi applied in these cases. The practices employed for a large number of these cases can be summarised as "false and/or falsified request for aid", "false and/or falsified documents", "fictitious use or processing" or "refusal of inspection". OLAF would classify these cases as "suspicion of fraud" (IRQ3). The Maltese case was also reclassified in to "suspicion of fraud" now a penal sanction was imposed.
chart shows that the level of "suspected fraud" cases, as a percentage of the total number of irregularities reported, is relatively stable.
"Suspected fraud" as a percentage of the total amounts affected by the irregularities reported varied between approximately 3% and 45% during the period 2000 2008. A greater difference between the percentage of "suspected fraud" cases based on the amounts and the percentage based on the number of "suspected fraud" cases was to be expected; amounts vary more and differ per irregularity reported. The amounts affected of one single fraud case can already give a complete different and often a distorted picture.
Chart AG 2: Irregularities and "suspected fraud"
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
200020012002200320042005200620072008
cases calculated by OLAFcases calculated by MS
amounts calculated by OLAFamounts calculated by MS
It should be reiterated that the obligation to indicate "fraud" was introduced by Reg. 1848/2006, which came into force on 1 January 2007. The figures therefore, should be interpreted cautiously.
Commission may decide to charge the entire outstanding amounts to the Member State concerned.
As of financial year 2008, where the undue payments are the result of administrative errors committed by the national authorities, the entire amount involved is deducted from the annual accounts of the paying agencies concerned and, thus, excluded from Community financing.
For EAGF, this mechanism was applied for the second time by the financial clearance decision for the financial year 2007
71 which cleared all pending non-
recovered cases dating from 2003 or 1999 (cases which were four or eight years old respectively) by charging 131.4 million to the Member States. For those paying agencies for which the 2007 accounts were disjoined from the financial clearance decision, a further 0.05 million was charged by a subsequent decision
72, and a
further 6.2 million still remains to be charged.
Table AG15 provides an overview of the recovery, the irrecoverable declared cases and the outstanding amounts at the end of 2008.
Regarding the financial year 2008, the Member States recovered 108 million , 32.2 million was declared irrecoverable and the outstanding amount still to be recovered from the beneficiaries at the end of that financial year was 1 246 million for EAGF. The financial consequences of non recovery for cases dating from 2004 or 2000 were determined according to the "50-50 rule" mentioned above by charging 31.4 million to the Member States in the financial clearance decision for the financial year 2008 adopted by the Commission on 29 April 2009
-
73.A further 0.8 million will be
charged by subsequent decisions. Due to this "50-50" clearance mechanism that was applied in the last years by charging some of the non-recovered amounts to the Member States the outstanding amount towards the EU budget was reduced to around 900 million.
Regarding the EAFRD and the Transitional rural development instrument the clearance mechanism set out above did not apply yet. For these funds the amount outstanding at the end of the financial year 2008 was 7.9 million. 17.2 million was recovered and 0.2 million was declared irrecoverable during the financial year 2008.
Table AG15: financial information on recovery (EAGF, EAFRD, TRDI)
Table AG15
Financial information on recovery cases
Tables 1-4 of Annex III of Regulation (EC) No 885/2006
Financial year 2008
recovereddeclared irrecoverableoutstanding
MSduring FY 2008during FY2008at the end of FY 2008in % of total
AT5,811,335400,2345,037,0380.40%
BE5,052,8482,20260,042,5154.79%
BG 0.00%
CY33,677 0.00%
CZ886,067 220,3860.02%
DE15,811,493899,45958,125,9854.63%
DK3,673,52037,70411,330,8450.90%
EE829,70434,599304,0720.02%
EL1,276,54556,05650,239,1334.01%
ES25,581,93025,070,499177,283,11014.13%
FI929,786 737,3190.06%
FR19,173,7373,919,214146,586,95411.69%
HU2,909,026 1,613,1410.13%
IE4,310,92262,96710,149,9740.81%
IT11,858,824876,018622,054,57649.60%
LT632,473331,053,5850.08%
LU83,6101,94869,9000.01%
LV1,451,18026,227557,5040.04%
MT48,3906,57039,7370.00%
NL4,684,27360,07319,924,0251.59%
PL4,678,7014662,298,8220.18%
PT8,791,585365,67951,569,7204.11%
RO 0.00%
SE2,033,76921,8581,218,4980.10%
SI1,862,2833,636888,0930.07%
SK104,416141,6971,972,8120.16%
UK2,550,844424,97030,902,4852.46%
Total125,060,93732,412,1081,254,220,230100.00%
data provided by DG AGRI on 31 March 2009
ˇ 121 cases an administrative sanction had been imposed;
ˇ 3 cases a penal sanction had been imposed.
In all other 913 cases (81%), no information was received from Member States.
Member States indicated in 188 cases the type of sanctions imposed. Member States indicated that in 130 cases a "community administrative sanction" was imposed. In 11 cases, penal sanctions were imposed. It concerns 2 cases in which imprisonment less than 1 year was imposed and 9 cases in which a financial sanction was imposed.
The total amount of penalties imposed is 1.4% of the total amount affected by irregularities reported. The percentage is rather low despite the fact that Austria and Poland reported a relatively high percentage of financial penalties, 28.4% respectively 38.4%. All other Member States reported a zero or a rather low amount
of penalties imposed.
Member States report only in a very limited number of cases the sanctions applied and penalties imposed, therefore, these figures should be read with the necessary caution.
3.5. Conclusions
Introduction
ˇ a new reporting system was introduced in 2008: Module 1848;
ˇ successful IMS-pilot Germany thanks to the efforts of all involved parties;
Reporting discipline:
ˇ reporting discipline of Member States improved in 2008 (78% 92%);
ˇ all Member States used the electronic 1848-format74 to submit irregularities;
ˇ timely reporting should be improved by Austria, Sweden and Slovakia;
ˇ reporting of personal data is an attention point for Germany and Finland;
ˇ budget lines (DG AGRI nomenclature) need to be indicated in full detail,
especially by Lithuania and Slovakia;
ˇ practices employed should be described in more detail by Slovakia;
ˇ date on which the irregularity was committed should be better indicated,
especially by Hungary;
ˇ the compliance rate per key-element for performing risk analysis:
-
-timely reporting: 86% (2007: 87%)
-
-personal data: 85% (2007: 68%)
-
-measure affected: 93% (2007: 86%)
-
-date irregularity committed: 97% (2007: 86%)
-
-Belgium, Spain, Italy and Portugal reported a relatively high amount of irregularities and/or a relatively high total amount affected by irregularities;
-
-Germany, France, Ireland and United Kingdom reported a relatively low amount of irregularities and/or a relatively low total amount affected by irregularities;
ˇ 18% of the irregularities concern the request for aid;
ˇ Most frequently occurring type of irregularity (40%) concerned the action or non-
action of a beneficiary;
ˇ 10% of the irregularities were detected before payment;
Specific analysis:
ˇ the three main categories most affected by irregularities are:
-
-fruit and vegetables: 92 cases involving EUR 40 million
-
-rural development: 437 cases involving EUR 20 million
-
-wine sector: 138 cases involving EUR 12 million;
ˇ the budget lines most affected by irregularities are:
-
-fruit and vegetables: compensation to encourage processing of citrus fruits
-
-rural development:
ˇ improving the processing and marketing of agricultural products
ˇ investments in agricultural holdings
Penalties:
ˇ 188 cases (17%) in which sanctions were imposed;
ˇ 11 penal sanctions were imposed, including 2 cases of imprisonment;
ˇ Austria and Poland reported more financial penalties than other Member States.
-
4.EUROPEAN FISHERY FUND
Commission Regulation (EC) No 498/2007 of 26 March 200776 lays down detailed
rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 1198/2006 which establishes the European Fisheries Fund (EFF) and defines the framework for Community support for the sustainable development of the fisheries sector, fisheries areas and inland fishing.
Chapter VIII of Regulation (EC) 498/2007 contains the relevant provisions for the reporting of irregularities to the Commission, establishing a set of rules that are very similar to those foreseen for the Structural Funds.
During 2008, no irregularities have been reported by the Member States concerning this Fund.
-
5.STRUCTURAL MEASURES (ANNEXES 13-17)
In 2007, Member States reported 3,858 irregularities under Regulation (EC) No 1681/94 which covers the four Structural Funds
77 and 140 under Regulation (EC) No
1831/94 (on the Cohesion Fund). 9 irregularities were reported under Regulation No 1828/2006, which covers the programming period 2007-2013
78.
The total amount affected by irregularities in 2008 was about EUR 585.2 million, EUR 528.9 million of which was from the Structural Funds and EUR 56.3 million from the Cohesion Fund. Irregularities reported in this sector were equivalent to 1.25% of the resource allocations for 2008.
Since the information system of irregularities was established, Member States have reported 28,627 irregularities, of which 27,619 related to the Structural Funds and 1,008 to the Cohesion Fund.
5.1. Reporting Discipline
In 2008, the Commission received 8,401 communications79 under Regulations (EC)
Nos 1681/9480, 1831/9481, and 1828/2006 of which 4,331 were updates of cases that
77 For the programming period 2000-2006, the four Structural Funds are:
-
a)The European Regional Development Fund (ERDF), supporting primarily productive investment,
infrastructure and development of SMEs;
-
b)The European Social Fund (ESF), supporting measures to promote employment (education
systems, vocational training and recruitment aids);
-
c)The Guidance Section of the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF-
Guidance), supporting measures for the adjustment of agricultural structures and rural development;
had been previously reported. For the first time, irregularities concerning the new programming period 2007-2013 were received from Bulgaria, the Czech Republic and Slovenia.
During 2008 the use of the electronic facility put at disposal of the Member States has seen a further increase; as a result, almost 78% of the communications has been reported through electronic means as showed in Chart 1.
Chart SF 1: Reporting of irregularities used formats
22.2%69.2%
8.6%
electronicelectronic filepaper
The increased use of the electronic reporting system led to an improvement in data quality and in timeliness of reporting. It also reduces different understanding and interpretations of the reporting system and, therefore, improves the consistency of the information submitted to the Commission.
Though not all Member States have been using the electronic facility provided through the AFIS-ECR platform, all of them have been trained for the new reporting system IMS and showed their willingness to use it as soon as it will become operational in the course of 2009.
(3) programme number: indicates the percentage of irregularities for which the indication of the numbers identifying the programme interested by the irregularity is provided;
(4) practises adopted: shows the percentage of irregularities for which the description of the practises adopted has been indicated;
(5) classification: indicates the percentage of the irregularities for which Member States indicated whether they constituted an "administrative irregularity", a "suspected fraud" or an "established fraud";
(6) date established: shows the percentage of the irregularities for which the date in which the irregularity has been established has been provided;
(7) personal data: indicates the percentage of the reported irregularities for which the data identifying the legal entities or natural persons have been provided;
(8) compliance: is calculated as the average of all the values indicated in columns from a) to g).
Table SF1: compliance per Member State year 2008
MStimely practises
reportingtime gapprogramme
numberemployedclassificationdate
establishedpersonal datacomplianceMS
SE30%58%100%99%10%99%99%71%SE
FR97%73%100%100%0%100%99%81%FR
ES100%83%100%100%0%98%100%83%ES
SK52%86%86%92%73%98%100%84%SK
DK100%100%100%100%0%100%100%86%DK
EL30%86%96%100%91%97%100%86%EL
IE100%100%100%100%0%100%100%86%IE
DE100%93%100%100%100%100%23%88%DE
AT35%89%100%100%100%95%100%88%AT
IT99%49%100%99%99%99%100%92%IT
HU77%92%100%100%100%90%100%94%HU
PT75%92%100%100%100%100%100%95%PT
FI100%75%100%96%96%100%100%95%FI
PL72%99%100%100%100%100%99%96%PL
CZ94%99%100%100%93%100%100%98%CZ
(9) classification: though the compliance with this obligation is increasing in relation to 2007 (from 67% to 73%), this remains the weakest element in the implementation of the regulation
82;
(10) time gap: still 18% of the irregularities are reported with a time gap greater than 2 years from the moment of detection. 16% of the irregularities are reported between 12 and 24 months after detection.
Apart from these two elements, the situation can be considered satisfactory, with a compliance rate of 92%.
5.2. General Trends
5.2.1. Overall trends
In 2008 the number of irregularities reported increased by around 6.7% as compared to the year before. However, the related irregular amounts decreased of about 27.2%, from EUR 804.1 million (including the Cohesion Fund) to EUR 585.2 million. As far as the number of irregularities communicated is concerned, it has reached its peak in 2002 with more than 4,500 irregularities notified. This situation was due to the closure of the programming period 1994-1999. As shown in Chart SF2, since then the number of reported irregularities has been increasing with the only exception of 2006.
Chart SF 2: 1998-2007 trend concerning number of reported irregularities for the Structural Funds, the Cohesion Fund and in total
5,000
4,000
s
Among the EU10, with the sole exceptions of Malta (-67%) and Estonia (-12%), the increases varied between +25% (Poland) and +386% (Lithuania).
Among the EU15, the most significant decreases were those of Luxembourg (no reported irregularities) and Ireland (-85%), while the most significant increases were those of Sweden (+97%) and the Netherlands (+75%).
5.2.1.1. Trends related to the Funds
Irregularities affecting projects financed through the ERDF remain the most frequently reported, as showed in Chart SF 3.
Chart SF 3: Distribution of irregularities among the Funds - 2008
FIFGCF
1%3%EAGGF - Guid.
ESF10%
30%
ERDF
56%
The trend per Fund showed in Chart SF 4 confirms the overall increase of irregularities related to the ERDF in the last years with the exception of the years 2003 and 2006.
Control Obj (All) no irregularity (All)
Count of Affected
5,000
4,500
4,000
3,500
3,000
2,500
2,000
1,500
1,000
500
19981999200020012002200320042005200620072008
Funds
CFEAGGF - Guid.ESFFIFGERDF
Year
Since 2003, the other three Structural Funds remain quite stable. In comparison to 2007, irregularities referred to the Cohesion Fund and the ERDF increased by 63% and 18% respectively. Those related to the ESF, EAGGF Guidance and FIFG decreased by 4%, 17%and 17% respectively.
5.2.1.2. Trends related to Member States
Like in previous years, the irregularities are not distributed equally among Member States.
Taking into consideration how the irregularities are distributed among Member States, like in previous years the biggest countries and those with the highest overall funding from the Cohesion policy report the most irregularities. In 2008, the highest number of irregularities was reported by Italy (802, +24%), Spain (552, -14%), the United Kingdom (483, -3%), Portugal (425, -22%), and Poland (337, +25%).
In the Financial Instrument for Fishery Guidance (FIFG), irregularities from Greece and Italy (12), and the United Kingdom (9) account for more than 67% of the total number of reported irregularities affecting this Fund.
Finally, concerning the Cohesion Fund, Spain reported almost 47% of the received irregularities (64) for this fund, followed by Portugal (22) and Hungary (13). Greece, which in the previous years had reported the greatest share of the irregularities affecting this Fund, comes in fourth place (12) Concerning this Fund a certain concern remains as to the reliability of the reported information, as the number of reported irregularities appears too low in relation to the other funds and the allocated resources.
5.2.2. Amounts involved
The irregular amounts decreased significantly (-27.2%). It is difficult to explain this variation also in relation to the increased number of reported irregularities. It can happen, however, that in certain years some irregularities involving great amounts are detected and that can greatly influence the overall situation.
Chart SF5 shows the trend of the irregular financial amounts since 1998.
Chart SF 5: 1998-2008 trend concerning irregular financial amounts for the Structural Funds, the Cohesion Fund and in total
900,000,000
800,000,000
700,000,000
600,000,000
R500,000,000
E U
400,000,000
300,000,000
It seems also premature to indicate whether the decrease in terms of irregular financial amounts represents an inversion of the general tendency that for the last ten years (1998-2007) has seen an upward trend.
It should also be stressed that, as of 2007, the new programming period 2007-2013 comes into relevance. The first irregularities related to the new programmes have been reported in 2008.
Only a part of these irregularities have real financial consequences and constitute a specific potential loss to the European budget. In fact, some irregularities are detected before any payment is made and the question of recovery does not arise;
others are corrected at the closure of the relevant programming period (for more details see infra paragraph 5.3.3).
Moreover, the majority of irregularities having a real financial impact are not fraudulent and, once an irregular situation has been identified, corrective measures are adopted and recovery procedures started. These may take some time. In cases of suspected fraud, however, penal or judicial procedures are activated and longer delays can be expected.
As far as amounts per country are concerned, Spain has reported the highest irregular amounts (EUR 165.5 million; -22% in relation to 2007), followed by the United Kingdom (EUR 123.3 million; -24%), Italy (EUR 75 million; -52%) and Poland (EUR 35.6 million; +91%). This "ranking" follows the same pattern as last year, with the exception of Poland.
Table SF2 summarises the number of irregularities and related amounts reported by each Member State.
The huge differences between Member States in terms of number of irregularities and amounts affected do not necessarily mean that one country is more fraudulent than another. The reason for the high number of irregularities in the given country could be as well a higher number of controls carried out in the analysed year, while the reason for a lower number in another could be also related to a restrictive interpretation of the reporting obligation.
N° of irregularitiesIrregular amounts (in EUR)
MS 20072008Variation20072008Variation
NN%EUREUR%
AT283732%4,693,5122,862,186-39%
BE283525%1,509,3811,543,1572%
BG 4#DIV/0! 804,317#DIV/0!
CY14300%1,924172,2988855%
CZ3682128%4,843,68614,016,754189%
DE398372-7%39,981,09720,985,235-48%
DK87-13%174,560678,343289%
EE3330-9%1,301,3842,182,51168%
EL8810823%94,431,56924,692,137-74%
ES643552-14% 211,547,204165,579,427-22%
FI4128-32%2,482,5021,813,410-27%
FR14098-30%6,179,1644,998,359-19%
HU375241%3,319,8534,698,97542%
IE335-85%8,720,54814,801,19070%
IT64680224% 156,459,19474,918,714-52%
LT734386%439,97411,528,4872520%
LU8 -100%248,458 -100%
LV927200%1,915,523944,019-51%
MT31-67%138,032410,761198%
NL15026275%26,553,66728,722,5098%
PL26933625%18,631,50235,558,89891%
PT542425-22%52,386,78735,124,176-33%
SE7414697%3,399,7153,718,7299%
SI413225%128,793430,933235%
SK3064113%2,251,79010,742,355377%
UK500483-3% 162,362,258123,321,443-24%
TOTAL3,7564,0077% 804,102,077585,249,322-27%
5.2.2.1. The four Structural Funds
As not all Member States benefit of the resources coming from the Cohesion Fund, Table SF3 presents the same information as in Table SF2, but limiting it to the four Structural Funds.
Table SF3: umber of cases and amounts affected by irregularities per Member State limited to the four Structural Funds
N° of irregularitiesIrregular amounts (in EUR)
MS 20072008Variation20072008Variation
NN%EUREUR%
AT283732%4,693,5122,862,186-39%
BE283525%1,509,3811,543,1572%
BG 4 #DIV/0! 804,317#DIV/0!
CY14300%1,924172,2988855%
CZ3480135%4,843,68613,928,544188%
DE398372-7%39,981,09720,985,235-48%
DK87-13%174,560678,343289%
EE3128-10%1,234,4692,052,89766%
EL639652%27,172,11919,754,366-27%
ES609488-20% 178,961,878140,751,472-21%
FI4128-32%2,482,5021,813,410-27%
FR14098-30%6,179,1644,998,359-19%
HU343915%2,688,5973,298,03723%
IE322-94%2,082,3585,303,050155%
IT64680224% 156,459,19474,918,714-52%
LT426550%110,8233,247,9192831%
LU80 -100%248,458 -100%
LV822175%1,869,769857,740-54%
MT31-67%138,032410,761198%
NL15026275%26,553,66728,722,5098%
PL26132926%18,040,86435,344,14496%
PT538403-25%51,521,35229,468,297-43%
SE7414697%3,399,7153,718,7299%
SI413225%128,793430,933235%
SK2762130%1,524,6869,533,552525%
UK500483-3% 162,362,258123,321,443-24%
TOTAL3,6703,8675% 694,362,858528,920,411-24%
The overall picture varies only partly in relation to Table SF2, with Spain still reporting the highest irregular financial amounts (140 MEUR, -21% in relation to the year 2007), followed by the United Kingdom (123 MEUR, -24%%), Italy (75 MEUR, -52%) and Poland (35 MEUR, +96%).
5.2.2.2. The Cohesion Fund
For the Cohesion Fund, Spain is the Member State having reported the highest irregular amounts (almost 25 MEUR), though with a significant decrease in relation to 2007 (-24%); it is followed by Ireland (9.5 MEUR; +43%) and Lithuania (8.2 MEUR; +2,416%). Table SF4 shows the details for this Fund by Member State.
Table SF4: umber of cases and amounts affected by irregularities per Member State Cohesion Fund
N° of irregularitiesIrregular amounts (in EUR)
MS 20072008Variation20072008Variation
NN%EUREUR%
CZ220% 88,210#DIV/0!
EE220%66,915129,61494%
EL2512-52%67,259,4504,937,771-93%
ES346488%32,585,32624,827,955-24%
HU313333%631,2561,400,938122%
IE13200%6,638,1909,498,14043%
LT38167%329,1518,280,5682416%
LV15400%45,75486,27989%
PL87-13%590,638214,754-64%
PT422450%865,4355,655,879554%
SK32-33%727,1041,208,80366%
TOTAL8614063% 109,739,21956,328,911-49%
Values related to the Cohesion Fund still appear to be unreliable to allow a convincing analysis of the related trends.
Further information concerning the irregularities related to the Cohesion Fund by Member State is showed in Annexes 14 and 17.
5.2.3. Impact on budget
Since 2002, the impact of reported irregularities on the Structural measures budget has been oscillating between 1.9% (in 2002) and 1.25% (in 2008), as showed in chart SF6.
2.00%
1.80%
1.60%
1.40%
1.20%
1.00%
0.80%
0.60%
0.40%
0.20%
0.00%
19981999200020012002200320042005200620072008
IMPACT ON BUDGET0.280.380.380.711.891.441.731.561.691.771.25
In particular, in the period between 2003 and 2007, the impact on the budget of the reported irregularities has remained rather stable.
On the one hand, this supports the conclusion that a certain consistency and continuity have been achieved in the reporting of irregularities by Member States.
However, on the other hand, there is a great difficulty in analysing correctly this information. The reported irregularities refer to programmes and projects that are of a multi-annual nature and, furthermore, a part of the reported irregularities refers to a different programming period (for more details see paragraph 5.3 below). Furthermore, the budget for the year 2008, on which the impact of irregularities reported by the Member States has been calculated, is indicating the resources allocated to the second year of the programming period 2007-2013, while only a very limited number of the reported irregularities are referred to it.
This implies that a correct estimation of the impact of irregularities and suspected frauds on the part of the European budget dedicated to the Cohesion policy is possible only by analysing irregularities by programming period. Paragraph 5.3 will deal with these specific issues.
Average
CodeDescriptionFrequencyDetected
amountsdetected
amounts
NEUREUR
206 Control of documents992101,897,516102,719
101 National administrative or financial control59698,899,271165,938
999 Other facts480154,813,939322,529
Additional control on request by the Commission
16135216,060,95845,628
On the spot control of achievement of project
or action
23026521,824,97882,358
209 Control on the premises of the company23821,772,15991,480
208 Documentary check15913,228,96283,201
199 Other controls15424,751,604160,725
307 Routine14426,045,849180,874
320 Ex post control1339,556,76671,855
The amounts indicated are indicative insofar as several detection methods may be reported in connection with a single irregularity and therefore be double counted in the table.
The main two types of controls emerging from the table are documentary checks and
on-the-spot controls.
Particularly significant is the high number of detections that followed "Additional control on request of the Commission". This "source" of detection is observed exclusively in Italy (341 cases) and the Czech Republic.
It should also be emphasised the excessive use of generic codes such as "Other facts"
and "Other controls". The lack of further information on these methods is particularly regrettable, as these "categories" presents high average detected amounts.
Contrary to previous years, documentary checks present a higher average detected amount than on-the-spot controls.
Falsifications of documents were detected in Italy, Poland, Germany, the United Kingdom, Portugal, Latvia, Lithuania, Greece, Estonia, France and Cyprus.
Table SF6 shows the most frequent types of irregularities together with the amounts involved and the indicative average amount
85:
Table SF6: Most frequent types of irregularities reported by Member States
Average
CodeDescriptionFrequencyIrregular
amountsirregular
amounts
NEUREUR
325 Not eligible expenditure1186208,040,494175,414
614 Infringement of rules concerned with public procurement534169,461,168317,343
999 Other irregularities51054,499,725106,862
210 Missing or incomplete supporting documents35651,077,689143,477
201 Missing or incomplete documents34132,564,15395,496
612 Failure to respect other regulations / contract provisions21534,221,421159,169
812 Action not carried out in accordance with rules17534,673,676198,135
601 Failure to respect deadlines12312,834,889104,349
811 Action not completed1078,094,48975,649
741 Failure to fulfill commitments entered into1078,919,28883,358
It is important to underline that the most frequent types of irregularities are almost the same as in the last four years confirming a certain consistency in patterns and trends relating to structural measures and consistency in reporting by the Member States.
The consistent pattern across all the funds is that the "not eligible expenditure" is the most reported typology. In the second place, "infringement of rules concerned with public procurement" is the second most reported typology for the ERDF and the Cohesion Fund.
"Missing or incomplete supporting documents" is the second most reported typology for the ESF and FIFG.
After the modifications introduced by Regulations Nos 2035/2005 and 2168/2005 to the basic Regulations Nos 1681/94 and 1831/94, as of January 1st 2006, Member States have to "qualify" the reported irregularity, indicating whether the reported irregularity is a "suspected fraud" or not. The concept of "suspected fraud" is necessary, because a given situation can be defined as fraudulent only after a sentence is issued by a competent court.
As already indicated in Table SF1, Member States classified 78% of the reported irregularities (that is to say that they indicated whether the reported situation was evaluated as an administrative irregularity or a suspected fraud). It is an encouraging progress in relation to the previous year, when 67% of the reported cases provided for this indication, but it also shows that there is still room for improvement, in particular from certain Member States (4 Member States have still not provided any qualification at all; another could provide the classification only for 10% of the reported irregularities. For more details, see supra par. 5.1).
About 8.3% of the 2,916 irregularities for which qualification has been provided, were qualified as "suspected frauds". This result is lower than last years' estimations.
Furthermore, by applying the same analytical techniques of the previous years86 to
the data set classified by the Member States, the results obtained are rather consistent with those obtained on the portion of information received from the Member States as indicated in table SF7. In fact, the results differ in only 1.47% of the cases. However, all these differences are related to cases that according to the analysis by the Commission should have been classified as cases of suspected frauds.
Table SF7: Comparison between Commission and Member State classification of irregularities
ClassificationDifferentSameTotalDiffrence as %
Despite the consistent and positive results showed above in terms of comparability and compatibility of the two approaches (the Member States' and the Commission's), still some caution is recommended in assessing the meaning of these figures. A 100% qualification from the Member States would remove this caution, but these results are, indeed, encouraging.
Chart SF788 presents the trend of the percentage of suspected frauds on the total
reported irregularities in the last eight years calculated according to Commission's estimations and Member States' classifications.
Table SF 8 shows the values represented on the chart.
Chart SF 7: Level of "suspected frauds" on total reported irregularities from 2000 to 2008
25.00%
20.00%
l
t a15.00%
n t o
o
%10.00%
5.00%
0.00%
20012002200320042005200620072008
Year
Cases classified by COMM.Amounts linked to cases class. COMM
Cases classified by MSAmounts linked to cases class. MS
Table SF 8: Level of "suspected frauds" on total reported irregularities from 2000 to 2008
Year Classification
20012002200320042005200620072008
The different results between the two analyses depend almost exclusively on the fact that the analysis by the Commission makes use of the entire data set of irregularities, while that based on the classification by the Member States uses a smaller data set (due to not complete compliance with the reporting obligations as explained under paragraph 5.1).
The analysis of the Commission highlights a decreasing tendency of the reported suspicion of frauds and related amounts (expressed as percentage of the total reported irregularities and irregular amounts) from 2006 to 2008. It is premature to conclude about a diminution of fraud in the sector, as results may be easily influenced by the detection of cases of suspicion of fraud with bigger or smaller amounts involved, but it is worth monitoring it in the coming years.
On the basis of this estimation, in 2008, reported "suspected frauds' affect about 0.11% of the annual budget for the Cohesion Policy.
However, this does not mean that this amount turns out into a loss for the European budget. In fact, these amounts relate to suspected fraudulent behaviours that have been detected by national authorities and for which recovery procedures are ongoing. Moreover, when these situations were detected in early stages of the process, the "potential" loss is even decreased, because no payments or only interim payments have been granted.
By analysing only the cases estimated to be considered as "suspected frauds", the amounts still to be recovered related to them impacts on the EU budget for 0.07%.
5.3. Specific analysis Irregularities related to the programming period 2000-2006
The specific analysis focuses on the programming period 2000-2006; the data set is composed of all the irregularities related to it reported until the fourth quarter 2008.
In order to improve the comparability among the different Member States, the irregularities referred to the Cohesion Fund are not included.
4000700,000,000
3500
600,000,000
3000
500,000,000
2500
400,000,000
2000
300,000,000
1500
200,000,000
1000
500100,000,000
200020012002200320042005200620072008
N° of irregularitiesIrregular financial amounts
Irregularities related to this programming period have been steadily increasing year after year. This is due to the fact that controls on the projects also progressed with the advancing of the financed operations. It is worth remembering that the projects financed through the Structural Funds are implemented during several years.
Table SF 9 shows the data displayed on Chart SF 8 and also includes the amounts of annual payments from the Commission to the Member States indicating the related irregularity rate.
The irregularity rate is calculated by dividing the irregular financial amounts by the payments.
Table SF 9: number of reported irregularities, irregular amounts, payments and irregularity rate Programming Period 2000-2006
N° of Irregular
irregularitiesfinancial PaymentsIrregularity
Chart SF9 puts in comparison the trend related to the programming period 2000- 2006 with that of the previous round in terms of numbers of reported irregularities, in order to show that even after the year of closure of the period 1994-1999 (Year 9), irregularities keep on being communicated.
Chart SF 9: 1998-2006 trend concerning number of reported irregularities and irregular amounts Programming Period 2000-2006
4500
4000
3500
3000
2500
2000
1500
1000
500
Y1Y2Y3Y4Y5Y6Y7Y8Y9 Y10 Y11 Y12 Y13 Y14 Y15
PP1994-1999PP2000-2006
The chart clearly shows that the number of irregularities related to the current programming period reported in the first 8 years from its beginning are many more than those related to the previous.
This is due to a number of reasons. The increased resources allocated to the structural measures, the higher number of Member States that benefit from them, a better understanding of the reporting obligations from national authorities, but also, probably, a growing attention to this sector.
5.3.1. Irregularities affecting the different funds
Charts SF10 and SF11 show the distribution of the 15,495 irregularities and the related irregular financial amounts among the different Funds.
Chart SF10 (left): Distribution of irregularities by Fund
Chart SF 11 (right): Distribution of irregular financial amounts by Fund
FIFG
EAGGF - Guid.EAGGF - Guid.FIFG
11%2%6%1%
ESF 21%
ERDF
50%
ESF 37%
ERDF
72%
While in terms of number of reported irregularities the ERDF seems slightly under- represented in comparison with its share of the payments (58%), the irregularities financial amounts related to Regional Development Fund have a higher relative weight that is greatly exceeding its share of the payments (72% of the total irregular amounts against 58% of the total payments). This difference may be justified by the fact that the ERDF finances projects of a higher value and therefore irregularities tend also to have a greater amount.
It is interesting to note that in Table SF 9, the other three funds have an `Irregularity rate' that is very similar (between 0.64% and 0. 78%), while that of the ERDF is almost double than that of the ESF.
5.3.2. Irregularities by Objective
irregularity rate calculated as the ratio between irregular financial amounts and payments. Please note that the irregularity rate results slightly lower in Table SF10 than in Table SF8 as also payments from 2009 are included.
Table SF11: Irregularities, payments and irregular rate by Objective
N° of Irregular
irregularitiesfinancial Payments% of total Irregularity
amountspaymentsrate
OBJECTIVESNin in %%
Objective 19,6371,635,632,923148,048,550,68972.21%1.10%
Objective 22,486386,877,75322,175,231,94710.82%1.74%
Objective 32,556207,304,06123,564,856,68111.49%0.88%
Interreg36248,027,0394,924,646,8022.40%0.98%
Equal16810,583,5902,802,619,9381.37%0.38%
Urban846,143,461663,482,2400.32%0.93%
Fisheries out Obj.1914,341,821925,275,6730.45%0.47%
Leader+1514,007,2101,934,533,8990.94%0.21%
Innovative actions26735,174N/AN/AN/A
Not indicated13673,367N/AN/AN/A
TOTAL15,5742,304,326,399 205,039,197,869100.00%1.12%
Charts SF12 and SF13 show how the irregularities related to the programming period 2000-2006 were distributed among the different objectives.
Chart SF 12 (left): distribution of irregularities (number) by objective
Chart SF 13 (right): distribution of financial irregular amounts by objective
1
1
%%
%
2 %
1 %
1 %
16%9%
2%0%
17%
16%62%
72%
Objective 1Objective 2Objective 3Objective 1Objective 2Objective 3
InterregEqualUrban
InterregEqualUrban
Fisheries out Obj.1Leader+Innovative actionsFisheries out Obj.1Leader+Innovative actions
The distribution of the irregularities is to a certain extent in line with the allocation of the financial resources among the different objectives, with an over representation of irregularities related to objective 2 programmes and an under representation of irregularities affecting objective 3 programmes.
Furthermore, the irregularity rate for the Objective 2 programmes is the highest (1.74% of the payments). The irregularity rate for the Objective 1 programmes is almost equal to the overall irregularity rate (1.10% against 1.12%), while that for Objective 3 programmes, Fisheries out of Objective 1 regions, the Equal community initiative, and Leader+ are lower or significantly lower (respectively 0.88%, 0.47%, 0.38% and 0.20%).
These elements may imply some under-reporting in relation to programmes / initiatives presenting a very low irregularity rate. The interpretation of the irregularity rate of Objective 2 programmes is more difficult as it may indicate a greater effectiveness of the control systems of these programmes in detecting the irregularities or denote some problematic aspects in the implementation of these programmes. Information currently available does not allow solving this dilemma.
Table SF12: Fraud rate by Objective and Fund
FUNDERDFESFEAGGF - Guid.FIFGTOTALPaymentsFraud rate
OBJECTIVEEUREUREUREUREUREUR%
Objective 1EUR237,693,65158,966,37730,320,8422,379,813329,360,683148,048,550,6890.22%
Objective 2EUR13,700,075668,29514,368,37022,175,231,9470.06%
Objective 3EUR33,347,88933,347,88923,564,856,6810.14%
InterregEUR1,721,6661,721,6664,924,646,8020.03%
EqualEUR2,422,4312,422,4312,802,619,9380.09%
UrbanEUR222,840222,840663,482,2400.03%
Fisheries out Obj.1EUR1,061,2061,061,206925,275,6730.11%
Leader+EUR355,985355,9851,934,533,8990.02%
TOTALEUR253,338,23295,404,99230,676,8273,441,019382,861,070205,039,197,8690.19%
Payments (EUR)EUR118,209,399,77062,361,452,72520,933,544,318 3,534,788,108205,039,184,921
Fraud rate (%)%0.21%0.15%0.15%0.10%0.19%
Among the Objectives, programmes referred to the Objective 1 regions present a higher rate (0.22%) than the others. Objective 2 programmes present a very low rate (0.06%). Only the Leader+ initiative shows a lower rate (0.02%).
Among the Funds, the ERDF presents a rate of 0.21%, with ESF and EAGGF Guidance on the same level (0.15%) and the FIFG just lower (0.10%).
5.3.4. Irregularities detected before payment
An interesting aspect to examine in the framework of the protection of the Communities' financial interests is what proportion of irregularities is detected before any payment is effectively made to the beneficiaries.
This aspect can provide some concrete elements also concerning Member States' capabilities to prevent irregularities.
Table SF12 shows the total number of irregularities reported by each Member State on the whole programming period 2000-2006 (column A); the number of irregularities detected before any payment is made (column B); what percentage B represents on A (column C); the financial amounts reported as irregular (column D) and those related to the irregularities detected before payment (column E); and finally what percentage of the total irregular financial amounts reported have been identified before payment (column F).
Table SF 13: irregularities detected before payments per Member States - 2006
ABC=B/ADEF=E/D
related to before
MS Irregularities irregularities payment
Reported detected before detected before Reported detected on total
irregularitiespaymentpayment on totalirregular amountsbefore reported
NN%EUREUR%
AT22073.18%25,120,138721,6302.87%
BE1231310.57%7,095,377229,6973.24%
CY5120.00%174,2222730.16%
CZ1382518.12%25,412,37510,306,97840.56%
DE3,1841193.74%306,393,52523,854,7957.79%
DK721419.44%3,611,554557,37015.43%
EE811518.52%4,822,674428,5988.89%
EL53030.57%221,118,650244,5400.11%
ES2,08180.38%474,336,0262,224,0420.47%
FI2116128.91%9,688,5131,710,77217.66%
FR531326.03%21,915,505571,9702.61%
HU18010860.00%12,998,7738,371,90164.41%
IE5511.82%9,052,2415,5150.06%
IT2,38929412.31%419,599,478148,055,55235.28%
LT492653.06%3,934,9051,104,98628.08%
LU170.00%572,5060.00%
LV431023.26%4,358,1291,466,30233.65%
MT60.00%933,5430.00%
NL70055979.86%84,880,04964,288,42275.74%
PL77142454.99%110,507,37330,270,36127.39%
PT1,69860.35%141,020,124187,6180.13%
SE68044565.44%16,778,0129,714,48457.90%
SI2015.00%3,069,7917,0330.23%
SK971010.31%11,616,8421,188,08510.23%
UK1,6931197.03%385,316,07520,927,1865.43%
TOTAL15,5742,30114.77%2,304,326,399326,438,11014.17%
Looking at column F, very high rates of detection before payment emerge especially in some of the EU10 (namely Hungary, the Czech Republic, Latvia, Lithuania, and Poland) and, among the EU15, in Sweden, the Netherlands and Italy.
Some caution is needed on these data, because some Member States may have not reported the irregularities they detected before payment.
amounts. Member States are showing an increased capability of reacting to irregularities by recovering or securing the Community's financial interests in a more effective manner. It should be, however, be kept in mind that recovery procedures, especially in cases of suspicions of fraud, may take a few years before they are completed.
Pursuant to Regulation No. 1828/2006, 9 irregularities were reported for a total financial amount of EUR 901,294; of which EUR 12,864 remain to be recovered.
Pursuant to Regulation No.1831/94, Member States reported 140 irregularities for a total amount of EUR 56,328,911 (see annex 17), of which EUR 19,768,042 remain to be recovered. The amounts to be recovered are declining in relation to previous years.
5.5. Conclusions
Introduction
ˇ Member States reported 4,007 irregularities in 2008;
ˇ The total financial amount affected in 2008 was EUR 585.2 million.
Reporting discipline
ˇ The number of irregularities reported through the Electronic modules AFIS/ECR
has been increasing and represent now almost 80% of the total; the overall compliance of Member States has increased accordingly;
ˇ Member States need to pay more attention to submit the irregularities within
deadlines established by regulations, but the situation is improving in relation to the past;
ˇ The time gap between detection and reporting is satisfactory for 90% of the
ˇ The impact of irregularities on the total Structural actions budget decreased in
relation to the previous year (down to 1.25%);
ˇ Italy, Spain, the United Kingdom, Portugal and Poland are the countries that
reported the highest number of irregularities in 2008;
ˇ Spain, the United Kingdom, Italy and Poland are the countries that reported the
highest amounts;
ˇ High irregular financial amounts reported do not necessary imply that in country
occur more frauds and irregularities than in the other. The reason could be a higher number of controls;
ˇ The most frequent method for detecting irregularities is the `control of
documents', while `control by police' proved the method with the highest average irregular amounts detected;
ˇ `Not eligible expenditure' is the most frequently reported type of irregularity. The
other typologies reported are in line with previous years;
ˇ ERDF remains the fund to which the highest number of irregularities and the
highest amounts are related. This is normal considering that it is the Fund with the largest resources available.
ˇ In 2008 "suspected frauds", as a percentage of the total number of reported
irregularities, represent around 7.4%. This share increases to 9.8% on the total irregular amounts.
Specific analysis
ˇ The greatest majority of irregularities related to the programming period 2000-
2006 are referred to Objective 1 regions which are also the regions benefiting from the greatest support. In general, there is a certain balance among the budget allocated and the irregularities reported;
-
of irregularities by recovering or securing the European financial resources in a more effective manner;
ˇ The amounts to be recovered are declining for the Cohesion Fund.
-
6.PRE-ACCESSION FUNDS (ANNEXES 18-21)
Descriptive statistical analysis presented hereinafter relates to the enlargement context and deals with different groups of beneficiary countries benefitting from pre- accession assistance and varied periods of allocations.
Agenda 200090 strengthened the pre-accession strategy by setting up two financial
mechanisms: a pre-accession structural instrument (ISPA) to support improved transport and environmental protection infrastructures and a pre-accession agricultural instrument (SAPARD) to facilitate the long-term adjustment of agriculture and the rural areas of the applicant countries. ISPA
91 and SAPARD92
complement the actions of the PHARE93 programme, which has been the EU aid
programme for the current EU-12 since 1990.
The 10 Member States that joined the EU in 2004 received a Transition Facility in 2004-2006. Bulgaria and Romania received a Transition Facility in 2007.
Croatia received PHARE and ISPA (2005-2006), SAPARD (2006), CARDS (2001- 2004) and is the only country reporting CARDS
94 irregularities since 200695. Turkey
received pre-accession assistance via similar but separate instruments, budget lines and procedures.
Since 1 January 2007 EU pre-accession assistance has been channeled through a single Instrument for Pre-accession Assistance (IPA)
96 designed to deliver support
for candidate and potential candidate countries. The preliminary allocation for IPA in the period 2007-2013 is EUR 11.5 billion (in 2008 EUR 1.4 billion).
General overview
In 2008 the Commission/OLAF received 2,133 reports on pre-accession funds (PHARE, SAPARD, ISPA, Transition Facility (TF), CARDS, Turkish pre-accession instrument (PA)) from the Member states and Candidate countries. The received information consists of 523 new cases detected by the national authorities in 2008 and 1,610 follow-up reports on the previously reported cases. The number of new cases received on pre-accession assistance is the highest since the reporting obligation started to be fulfilled by the reporting countries.
The total amount affected by irregularities in 2008 was EUR 60,782,354 where PHARE accounts for EUR 26,731,257 (183 cases), SAPARD EUR 29,046,300 (213 cases), ISPA EUR 4,055,042 (99 cases), TF EUR 545,822 (4 cases), PA EUR 314,763 (18 cases), CARDS EUR 89,170 (6 cases).
6.1. Reporting discipline
The obligation to report irregularities in the area of pre-accession assistance is established in the Financing Agreements/Memoranda signed between the acceding countries, Candidate countries and the European Community and is in accordance with the provisions of Commission Regulation (EC) 1681/1994
-
97.This obligation is
yet enhanced by Commission decision granting conferral of management on extended decentralised basis (EDIS).
Pre-accession assistance related irregularities are reported using a standard paper template. The submitted information is processed and registered in the data base managed by OLAF.
In general, the quality of provided information is getting better and reporting countries are cooperative. However, insufficient or obscure reported information remains to be a challenge.
Inconsistencies and even contradictions in different sections of the same report still occur. In absolute numbers Romania has the highest number of notifications containing one or more content mistakes (44), followed by Bulgaria (32). In relative terms Slovenian notifications are the least reliable. These estimations are heavily influenced by the number of communications sent by the respective countries. Currently Romania and Bulgaria are the countries from which the highest numbers of notifications are received; therefore the number of mistakes is yet acceptable. More efforts could be put into the initial quality checks on a national level to avoid the inconsistencies.
Most common mistakes are incorrect or incomplete financial aspects of the reports, missing practices employed in committing irregularities, missing types of irregularities. The incorrect numbering remains to be a technical obstacle in cooperation with MSs' authorities on follow up related issues. Bulgaria has achieved significant improvements on that issue while Romania needs to pay more attention.
second quarters and several reminders were sent. Bulgaria missed the reporting deadline for SAPARD in 4
th quarter, so 17 new cases and last updates of previous
reports could not be included in this analysis. Turkey does not follow the reporting schedule and experiences very big delays.
Table PA 1: Timely reporting
Reported too lateReported
on time
Total
BG103385488
HU20121
PL46364410
SK342155
Failure to respect reporting deadlines by the Member States and Candidate Countries makes the preparation of a thorough analytical overview of detected irregular cases rather difficult. Since pre-accession assistance related irregularities are reported in paper some time is needed to process them.
6.1.2. Time gaps
In accordance with the Regulation 1681/94 there are some compulsory dates to be filled in (date of first information, the period of irregularity, date when the irregularity was established). The calculations in Table PA 3 estimating compliance are based on the dates presented in the first notifications sent in 2008. Failure to indicate at least one of the required dates affects the compliance. Some reporting countries tend to leave out the dates; therefore, more attention should be concentrated
on this aspect.
The average time span for relevant authorities to detect an irregularity is 24 months. However, for Poland and Estonia it took 3 years, for Romania and Malta 2 years. This time period also signals the end of the project cycle.
Table PA 2: Compliance in 2008 - classification of irregularities
Classification of cases by reporting countries
Suspected fraud% Compliance
CountryBlankIrregularityTotal
EE55100.00%
HR21518100.00%
BG22910914098.57%
HU191190.91%
SK18988.89%
TR52111872.22%
RO721016424670.73%
LV32540.00%
LT51616.67%
CZ161175.88%
PL451462.17%
MT110.00%
SI110.00%
Total1524432552370.94%
Estonia and Croatia fully complied. Malta and Slovenia did not classify any of the reported irregularities in 2008, but they reported very few. On average 71% of cases were classified. There is a visible increase in compliance with reference to 2008 so reporting countries are putting more efforts in fulfilling the necessary obligations.
6.1.4. Summary
Table PA 3 makes a summary of different aspects of compliance rate, namely dates required by the legislation, data on natural and legal persons involved, classification of cases, reporting deadlines. The countries are listed in order of compliance with the requirements established by the Regulation 1681/94. Inconsistencies for each country are more precisely seen by analysing separate columns.
Personal data compliance
Dates complianceClassification
of casesTimely reportingSummary compliance
Country
HR100.00%100.00%100.00%100.00%100.00%
BG86.43%100.00%98.57%78.89%90.97%
RO88.62%99.19%70.73%100.00%89.63%
EE40.00%100.00%100.00%100.00%85.00%
LV100.00%100.00%40.00%100.00%85.00%
LT100.00%100.00%16.67%100.00%79.17%
SK77.78%100.00%88.89%38.18%76.21%
MT100.00%100.00%0.00%100.00%75.00%
PL100.00%100.00%2.17%88.78%72.74%
TR11.11%94.44%72.22%100.00%69.44%
HU81.82%90.91%90.91%4.76%67.10%
CZ58.82%100.00%5.88%100.00%66.18%
SI100.00%0.00%0.00%100.00%50.00%
Total85.28%99.04%70,94%90.48%91.60%
6.2. General Trends
The intention of this descriptive analysis is to provide an overview of the reported irregularities in 2008 and to compare the reporting trends observed during the period 2002-2007.
One should take into account that Member States and Candidate Countries must report to the Commission cases exceeding the established thresholds. Reports below the threshold are included in the overall analysis (see Annex 19). Since the reporting countries decided to report such cases to the Commission it is possible that irregular amounts are only indicative and will be specified. Therefore, they are likely to get higher by means of the coming follow up reports.
Chart PA 1: Irregularities communicated by reporting countries (2002-2007)
70,000,000600
523
60,000,000
500
60,782,354
50,000,000
398
335400
40,000,000
341
300
30,000,00031,856,328
227
200
20,000,000
16,770,99517,987,118
10,000,000104
10,373,942100
65,320,607
6,122
2002200320042005200620072008
AmountsCases
6.2.2. Trend related to Member States and Candidate countries
Irregularities are not distributed equally among the reporting countries due to different periods of eligibility of expenditure. Three groups of reporting countries can be distinguished, namely 2004 accession Member States, 2007 accession Member States, and Candidate countries Croatia and Turkey. In 2008 EU-10 account for 19%, Bulgaria and Romania 73%, Croatia and Turkey 7% of the total number of cases. Talking about the total irregular amount reported EU-10 make 11%, Bulgaria and Romania - 83%, Croatia and Turkey 6%.
This grouping is well reflected providing a breakdown in Chart PA 2:
6.2.3. Amounts involved
For the purposes of this report the term eligible amount stands for the amount committed to be paid when the contract is concluded under the condition that the expenditure incurred is justified and eligible.
With regard to the amounts involved in the irregularities reported to the Commission, the total irregular amounts went up while total eligible amount went down in 2008.
In 2008 the eligible amount decreased by 43% in comparison to 2007. This was caused by figures on ISPA expenditure; however, there are certain doubts if these figures were reported correctly both in 2007 and 2008.
EU-10 does not report ISPA irregularities any longer due to the transfer of expenditure into the Cohesion Fund. Consequently, mainly Bulgaria and Romania sent communications for ISPA in 2008 (see Annex 18) and the first ISPA case was received from Croatia.
There is still a striking difference between both the number of cases and irregular amounts reported by Bulgaria and Romania. The number of ISPA cases reported by Bulgarian authorities has increased five times combined with three time increase in the irregular amounts. A sharp increase was observed during 4
th quarter 2008 when
the number of new cases reported (15) is 36% higher than the total number of ISPA cases (11) reported since 2004 by Bulgaria. This is a direct outcome of Commission audits. As for Romania the number of cases remained on the same level but the irregular amount decreased by 40%. Clearly, there is a difference in the approach to irregularity reporting between those two countries.
Irregular amount reported in 2008 went up by 90% and reached roughly EUR 61 million for all funds in total. The irregular amounts went up sharply for PHARE (74%) and SAPARD (180%); for PA and CARDS a small increase is seen; for ISPA, on the contrary, the irregular amount decreased by 31%.
Chart PA 3: Irregular amounts by fund
35000000
30000000
25000000
20000000
15000000
10000000
5000000
2002200320042005200620072008
CARDSISPAPHAREPASAPARDTF
The chart has to be interpreted with some caution. The number of reporting countries is growing; therefore the affected amounts are gradually increasing. What is more, pre-accession assistance funded projects run over several years while the affected amounts are calculated with reference to the reporting year. So the closing years are becoming peak years.
To be more precise, however, it is worth looking at the breakdown by groups of reporting countries. Since the greater part of the data set analysed originates from Romania and Bulgaria (see Chart PA 2), the trends are influenced by their reporting patterns.
The total irregular amount reported by EU-10 in 2008 rose by 8%. The percentage went down for PHARE (76%) and increased significantly for SAPARD (167%). There are several reasons behind it. For EU-10 many projects which did not get into the audit samples before, are being checked only when the final payment claims are submitted. SAPARD irregularities in 2008 were mostly detected by ex-post controls after the final payments had been made.
The major part of irregular cases is not fraudulent and corrective measures are undertaken (see 6.3.2).
The highest number of cases in 2008 was reported by Romania, Bulgaria, and Poland (respectively 246, 140, and 46). The pattern, however, is different with reference to the irregular amounts. Bulgaria, Romania, Croatia, and Lithuania reported the highest irregular amounts. Annex 18 presents all the figures in detail per each reporting country.
6.2.4. Impact on the budget
Estimation of the impact on the budget is based on the information provided in the irregularity reports and is totally linked to countries' approach to reporting and cooperation with the Commission.
While estimating the impact of pre-accession assistance irregularities on the budget one needs to take into account different groups of beneficiary countries benefitting from pre-accession assistance and varied periods of allocations.
After the accession of EU-10 in 2004 no new expenditure was committed (except for SAPARD where some commitments were made up at the end of 2004). PHARE, ISPA, SAPARD, the Turkish pre-accession instrument, and CARDS projects will be gradually completed by around 2010.
As an extension of financial assistance provided under PHARE before the accession, Transition Facility was employed in 2004-2006. 2006 was the final programming year for the Transition Facility, although contracting continued until 2008 and payment of funds until 2009. In 2007 EUR 78 million were allocated to Bulgaria and Romania under TF.
With regard to SAPARD, for Romania and Bulgaria automatic period of decommitment has been extended till December 2009 so contracting continues.
100.00%97.91%
90.00%
83.49%
80.00%74.13%
70.00%67.77% 67.34%
60.00%
51.78% 51.51%
50.00%
40.00%
32.17%
30.00%24.33%
20.00%15.79%
10.00%6.43%5.00%
2.08%5.39%
0.00%
LTHULVEEPLBGCZSKHRSITRMTRO Total
Member States - Candidate Countries
The comparison is drawn between the total values of the projects reported and the total irregular amounts per country. The share of irregular amount reached 5.4% in 2008 while in 2006 it was 1.9%. Although the figure has increased, Chart PA 4 illustrates that the share of irregular amount in relation to the total value of expenditure is relatively very little.
In comparison to the overall tendency, the share for Romania is very low and it highly influences the total figure. Lithuania, Hungary, Latvia, Estonia, and Poland report cases with rather high irregular share, which sometimes equals the total value
of the project.
The impact of irregularities reported in 2008 on budgetary allocations for the same year is 4.4% (EUR 61 million on EUR 1.4 billion of allocations). However, this figure should be taken with great caution as the programming periods and also beneficiary countries are different. Since 2007 pre-accession assistance allocations are given to Candidate and Potential candidate countries in the Balkans
Table PA 4 presents an overview of methods of detection which helped to trace most cases, the highest irregular amounts, and the highest average detected amounts. Most of the irregularities and the highest irregular amounts in 2008 were detected by means of `Control of documents'. The same method took the lead in 2007. This method actually reflects one of the key responsibilities of the national authorities implementing EU funds under decentralised and shared management modes. Besides, this method is of a rather general nature and can be used throughout the project cycle.
On the spot controls appeared to be very effective and the same tendency is observed in the course of several years. National administrative or financial controls trigger the third highest number of detections.
Some new tendencies are spotted in 2008, namely the role of 'Community controls. Moreover, the highest average amounts were detected while carrying out controls under the request of the Commission. It needs to be mentioned that most of such cases were reported by Bulgaria in relation to the specific situation on the management of EU funds there in 2008.
Information received from whistleblowers101 proved to be useful and instigated the
detection of high value cases (second highest average).
Several cases in the data set do not provide relevant information on the method of detection employed and state 'other'.
In general, the most frequent methods of detection imply both ex-ante and ex-post controls. It is a natural outcome since the data set involves projects under different stages of implementation (from procurement to final payments).
Table PA 4: Method of detection in 2008 by number of cases and irregular amounts detected
Detected EC amount irregularAverage detected amount
6.2.6. Types of irregularities
Reporting countries are obliged to indicate the practices employed in committing the irregularity (modus operandi)
-
102.This can be done by using the provided codes or
giving a description. The list of codes provides a collection of types of irregularities.
If the reporting countries do not choose the relevant code, OLAF picks the most appropriate code on the basis of the description. This is necessary to make the data reported by different countries comparable. Failure to provide clear and accurate descriptions by reporting authorities leads to difficulties in analyzing the data.
Most common type of irregularity by the number of received cases in 2008 was `Failure to respect other regulations/contract conditions' followed by 'Non eligible expenditure' (which was the most frequent modus operandi in 2007) and `Failure to fulfil commitments entered into'. This is yet another indication that a number of projects failed to be implemented.
'Falsified supporting documents' in 2008 got into top five of the most frequent modus operandi and pertain to the highest irregular amount and also average irregular amount. This type of irregularity does not indicate that frauds have already been established and only refers to the element that raised suspicion of the competent national authorities. Therefore, all these cases are classified as 'suspected fraud' and are analysed in detail in 6.3.2. They were reported by Turkey, Slovenia, Croatia, Poland, Czech Republic and Bulgaria. Bulgarian cases involving allegations of falsified supporting documents account for 72% of the total cases bearing this type of infringement. 'Failure to respect deadlines' again signals problems in the project implementation with second highest average irregular amount.
For SAPARD the most frequent modus operandi reported in terms of the number of cases is 'Failure to fulfil commitments entered into', and in terms of the amounts detected - 'Falsified supporting documents.
For PHARE the most frequent modus operandi reported in terms of the number of cases is 'Unjustified expenditure' and in terms of the amounts - `Failure to respect deadlines'.
Table PA 5: Types of irregularities by number of cases and irregular amounts
No of casesEC amount irregularAverage irregular amount
Type of irregularity
FAILURE TO RESPECT OTHER REGULATIONS/CONTRACT CONDITIONS829,055,905110,438
NON-ELIGIBLE EXPENDITURE793,062,00038,759
FAILURE TO FULFIL COMMITMENTS ENTERED INTO692,240,53932,472
UNJUSTIFIED EXPENDITURE504,608,78092,176
FALSIFIED SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS3612,095,015335,973
ACTION NOT CARRIED OUT IN ACCORDANCE WITH RULES303,631,566121,052
INFRINGEMENT OF RULES CONCERNED WITH PUBLIC PROCUREMENT292,312,61079,745
ACTION NOT IMPLEMENTED242,285,11495,213
FAILURE TO RESPECT DEADLINES245,945,892247,746
OTHER CASES OF IRREGULAR DOCUMENTS161,555,02097,189
OTHER IRREGULARITIES (TO BE SPECIFIED)132,585,598198,892
INCORRECT ACCOUNTS12348,34329,029
MISSING OR INCOMPLETE DOCUMENTS11476,06143,278
MISSING OR INCOMPLETE SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS91,185,176131,686
ACTION NOT COMPLETED7928,793132,685
6.3. Specific analysis
6.3.1. Irregularities affecting different funds
The total number of cases reported augmented in comparison to 2007 (by 58%). Reporting tendencies noticed during the previous years did not alter and most irregularities were communicated for PHARE and SAPARD funded projects. Those two funds made 76% of the irregularities reported.
As demonstrated by Chart PA 5 the highest number of cases reported in 2008 concerned SAPARD and made almost half of the total cases reported in numbers. The biggest share of irregular amount was also reported for SAPARD (47% of the total).
Chart PA 5: Distribution of communications per fund in 2008
No of casesEC amounts affected
value but the irregular amounts reported are relatively little (no reporting threshold was established). A number of ISPA cases reported in 2008 do not have any financial impact indicated even thought the legislation requires providing indicative figures
103.
In total, 366 projects were approved for ISPA, of which 201 were in the environment sector, 78 in the transport sector and 87 concerned technical assistance. The ISPA budget (in 2006 prices), before amendments and excluding technical assistance was 7,708 million euro
104.
In general, ISPA projects experienced delays, addenda, and retendering due to various infringements of procedures. Peculiarities of ISPA programming might imply that irregularities occurring during tendering procedures have not been reported especially related to the conflict of interest. Financial corrections applied on a national level before claiming the funds from the Commission were not considered
as irregularities.
Situation for SAPARD is different because the amounts reported as irregular frequently coincide with the total value of the project and full recovery is imposed. Most of SAPARD cases were detected after the payments had been made. This could be related to the fact that SAPARD for EU-8 was closed in 2007, but the checks can be carried out 5 years after the final payments had been made so it is likely that some new irregularities will still be detected in the coming years.
For Romania and Bulgaria automatic period of decommitment has been extended till December 2009 so contracting continues. These two countries are reporting the highest number of SAPARD irregularities (RO - 100, BG - 56
105). More irregularities
are likely to be detected in the contracts concluded before 2008. In 2008 Commission suspended payments for 3 major SAPARD measures in Bulgaria.
As for PHARE the situation in relation to 2007 changed and in 2008 the share of irregular amount reported increased. There is a direct link between these figures and the situation in Bulgaria as in 2008 44% of total PHARE cases and 57% of affected amount were reported by Bulgaria. Romania, respectively, accounts for 36% of cases and 34% of affected amount.
Chart PA 6: Distribution of cases by number
250
200207213
183
165
164
150151150
133
10090
99
87
68
5052
34
2626
625
18618
126
4
2002200320042005200620072008
CARDSISPAPHARESAPARDTFPA
Chart PA 6 presents the fluctuation of the number of cases throughout a period of 7 years. The lowest numbers of cases, with the exception of smaller scale programmes like CARDS, TF, PA, continue to be detected in ISPA with an increasing tendency since 2007. For PHARE and SAPARD the numbers were sharply growing since 2007. The trend is still dominated by PHARE and SAPARD. For 2008 a sharp rise by 103% is observed in the number of PHARE cases, an increase of 42% in SAPARD cases, and a lower increase of 14% in ISPA cases. The greater part of ISPA cases were reported by Romania.
6.3.2. Irregularity vs suspected fraud
Chart PA 7: Share of suspected fraud in reported cases
30.00%
25.56%
25.00%
21.70%
20.00%
16.90%15.84%
15.00%15.96%
12.92%
9.34%11.28%
10.00%
9.71%9.81%
8.42%9.85%
5.00%
0.00%
200320042005200620072008
% amounts% cases
7 countries out of 14 reporting countries reported suspected fraud cases in 2008. As illustrated by Chart PA 8, the highest number of suspected fraud cases was reported by Bulgaria, Romania, Turkey, and Poland. The highest amounts affected by suspected fraud are reported by Bulgaria in SAPARD programme, followed by Romanian and Croatian SAPARD. So this result shows that SAPARD is the programme most affected by suspected fraud. High amounts indicate that larger scale projects were reported as allegedly fraudulent.
Chart PA 8: Suspected fraud cases by country and fund in 2008
Distribution of fraud cases across the funds is not adequate. There is one suspected fraud case in ISPA (from 2008). For SAPARD 31 suspected fraud cases were reported in 2008 and 103 for all the years. For PHARE 14 reported in 2008 and 112
in total.
6.9% of cases reported in 2008 had an element of fraud i.e. falsified supporting documents. In PHARE they make 4.9%, in SAPARD 11.7% of the reported cases. This has to be interpreted with caution as reporting countries sometimes classify the case as fraud but indicate the modus operandi which is more likely to be an administrative infringement rather than criminal offence. An in depth analysis is necessary of a case basis.
pre-accession assistance related losses for EU budget could only be estimated when the programmes and the reported cases are closed (when deductions are made, recoveries are finalized, or final court rulings are published).
6.3.3. Recovery
The estimation of proportion of irregularities detected before any payments had been made reveals the extent of preventive actions taken by the reporting countries at the early stages.
Chart PA 9: Detection after payment
% detection after payment
80.00%
71.38%
70.00%
61.70%
60.00%54.15%
50.00%46.04%45.02%
40.00%
30.00%
17.21%
20.00%
10.00%
0.00%
200320042005200620072008
Chart PA 9 reveals the tendency that the greater of the reported irregularities were detected after the payments had been made. It is characteristic to the recent years and is a consequence of the final stages of the projects. A decrease in 2008 could be explained by Croatian and Turkish cases detected before payment during the contracting period. Some cases were also reported with indicative financial impact, therefore the result is likely to change.
Romania reports the highest amounts to be recovered (EUR 7.5 million for PHARE and SAPARD each). Bulgaria reported EUR 2.7 million to be recovered in PHARE and EUR 5.9 million in SAPARD.
In general, the recovery rate got worse in comparison to 2007 (42.9%) and reached only 36.2% in 2008.
Table PA 6: Recovery by reporting country
EC amount to be recoveredEC amount recovered
CountryRecovery rate
BG13,777,5681,718,08711.09%
CZ1,280,939776,05537.73%
EE922,8752,652,86074.19%
HR472,02028,2745.65%
HU1,514,0451,412,84048.27%
LT855,574437,62233.84%
LV906,32253,2295.55%
MT233,46033,95512.70%
PL1,540,9291,992,54856.39%
RO25,569,34918,347,92941.78%
SI58,159 0.00%
SK3,361,5011,476,27430.52%
TR579,679 0.00%
Total51,072,41928,929,67236.16%
The overview in Table PA 7 points out delays in the recovery process. There are some amounts to be recovered detected in 2003 where the risk of losses is high. Actually, the rate for 2003 increased only by 3.5%. The highest recovery rate is for cases dated 2004. It might be influenced by a special procedure required by SAPARD Multiannual Financing Agreement. The situation with respect to 2006 and 2007 has improved but still more efforts need to be taken to speed up the recoveries. Reporting countries should undertake recovery measures soon after the detection of irregularities and inform the Commission about the deductions made. The figure for 2008 is very low.
6.4. Conclusions
ˇ Member States and Candidate Countries reported 523 new irregularities in 2008
where the total financial amount affected was around EUR 61 million. 2008 is the peak year as both the number of new cases and the amounts affected are the highest so far received.
Reporting discipline
ˇ The quality of provided information is getting better and reporting countries are
cooperative.
ˇ The classification of irregularities is an element of reporting which visibly
increased compliance yet more efforts could be invested for further improvement.
In 2008 the compliance rate was 70.9%.
ˇ The rate of summary compliance with the reporting obligation has reached 91.6%.
General trends
ˇ The number of cases reported in 2008 increased by 58% and the amount affected
augmented by 90%.
ˇ Irregularities are not distributed equally among the reporting countries. Three
groups of reporting countries can be distinguished, namely 2004 accession Member States, 2007 accession Member States, and Candidate countries Croatia and Turkey. In 2008 EU-10 account for 19%, Bulgaria and Romania 73%, Croatia and Turkey 7% of the total number of cases.
ˇ The total irregular amount reported by EU-10 rose by 8% and the one for EU-2
increased by 152%.
ˇ The increase in the irregular amounts is justified by the enhanced controls at the
Specific trends
ˇ The highest number of cases reported in 2008 concerned SAPARD and made
almost half of the total cases reported in numbers. The biggest share of irregular amount was also reported for SAPARD (47% of the total).
ˇ 2008 is the year when a wide variety of pre-accession assistance programmes was
reported i.e. the first cases on Transition Facility, CARDS, and more cases for Turkish Instrument for pre-accession.
ˇ There is a direct link between rising SAPARD and PHARE figures and the
specific situation in Bulgaria with regard to the management of EU funds. In 2008 44% of total PHARE cases and 57% of affected amount were reported by Bulgaria. Romania, respectively, accounts for 36% of cases and 34% of affected amount.
ˇ In 2008 cases classified as suspected fraud made up 9.6% of irregularities and
21.7% of irregular amount.
ˇ Distribution of fraud cases across the funds is not equal. There is one suspected
fraud case in ISPA (from 2008). For SAPARD 31 suspected fraud cases were reported in 2008 (103 for all the years). For PHARE 14 suspected fraud cases were reported in 2008 (112 in total).
ˇ The highest number of suspected fraud cases was reported by Bulgaria, Romania,
Turkey, and Poland. The highest amounts affected by suspected fraud are reported by Bulgaria in SAPARD programme, followed by Romanian and Croatian SAPARD.
ˇ In 2008 suspected fraud value in relation to the eligible value of the reported
projects made a share of 1.17%. The total irregular amount of all the reported projects in relation to the total eligible amount is 5.4%.
-
7.DIRECT EXPENDITURE CENTRALISED DIRECT MANAGEMENT
7.1. Methodology and scope
This chapter contains a descriptive analysis of the data on recovery orders issued by Commission services in relation to expenditures managed under `centralised direct management'
106, which is one of the four implementation modes the Commission
can use to implement the budget. This chapter is based on data retrieved from the ABAC system, which is a transversal, transactional information system allowing for the execution and monitoring of all budgetary and accounting operations by the Commission. The system was developed by the Commission to facilitate compliance with the requirements of the Financial Regulation and its implementing rules.
One of the functionalities of the ABAC system is the `Recovery Context', which gathers detailed information on recovery orders issued by the Commission services and registered in ABAC. The information introduced into the recovery context relates, amongst others, to the qualification of the recovery order: financial officers have to indicate for each recovery order whether it relates to an error, an irregularity or a suspected fraud that has been identified in the implementation of a grant agreement or contract. In case the recovery order is qualified as 'suspected fraud', OLAF has to be notified. For each recovery order, information is given on the method of detection as well as the type of irregularity or suspected fraud that constitutes the basis for the recovery.
The recovery context is a relatively new functionality within ABAC. The collection of data from the Commission services only started recently and the current data available in ABAC refer to recovery orders issued since 2008. This first exercise revealed a number of practical problems, which are related to different interpretations throughout the Commission of definitions used in ABAC; the omission of certain information in the 'Recovery Context' and the link of the information with other data in ABAC.
For the financial analyses in this chapter, the following data were used from ABAC:
ˇ The number and corresponding financial amounts of recovery orders, which were
registered after validation by the authorising officer, including information on the place of residence of the contract partner of the Commission and the budget line concerned; the method of detection; the type of irregularity identified and the time span between the approval of a budget commitment, the notification of a recovery order and the return payment of the undue funds to the Commission;
ˇ The amount of a commitment to which a recovery order is linked and for which a
payment has been made to a beneficiary. In most cases, the commitment is higher than the amount to be recovered.
In the remainder of this chapter, the term recovery refers to the recovery order and the financial amount involved, whereas the term qualification refers to the qualification of the recovery order: irregularity or suspected fraud.
7.2. General analysis
In 2008, the Commission services registered 932 recovery orders in ABAC that were qualified as irregularities or suspected fraud. The committed budget for these 932 recoveries was EUR 580 million, of which EUR 34.7 million was identified as irregular
107.
7.2.1. Financial amounts involved
The financial impact of the 932 recoveries registered in 2008 was EUR 34.7 million, which includes an amount of EUR 3.2 million for the 19 recoveries qualified as suspected fraud and notified to OLAF. Table DE1 gives an overview of the aggregated financial commitments by policy domain as well as the number and financial amounts of recoveries, by qualification and policy domain. The classification into policy domain is provided for `internal policies' and `external actions' (table DE1). Table DE2 gives a more detailed classification of the policy area to which the recovery orders relate. The recovery orders have been issued for commitments that relate to several budget exercises, some even dating back to the 1990s, during which different budget headings were used. The budget structure of 2008 was used for tables DE1 and DE2. In cases where the budget title of a commitment from an earlier budget exercise does no longer exist, the most resembling budget title from the 2008 budget was used. The column `commitments' contains the addition of all the commitments made during previous budget exercises
Table DE 1: Commitments and Recoveries (number and amounts) by policy domain.
Recoveries
Commitments Recoveries as % of
Av. commitme
Area ( 1,000) % Average nts
1,000 N % 1 000 % 1,000
Internal policies
453,904 78.3 555 833 89.4 27,913 80.5 33.5 6.1%
External actions
126,134 21.7 1,274 99 10.6 6,762 19.5 68.3 5.4%
Total 580,038 100.0 622 932 100.0 34,675 100.0 37.2 6.0%
The table shows that the irregular amounts only represent 6% of the commitments
for which recovery orders were issued. More recovery orders were issued for
commitments made under the internal policies domain than the external assistance actions, but the relative share for external actions for both the number and the amounts to be recovered is substantially higher.
Table DE2 further specifies the recoveries by budget title. It should be observed that there is not always a direct link between the budget title or budget line and the Directorate General dealing with its implementation, as several DGs can share the appropriations on a budget line. The information in this table
do not refer to the
number of irregularities or suspected fraud per Directorate General.
Table DE 2: Recoveries (number and amounts) by qualification and budget title
Commit-Recoveries
ments Irregularity Sus pected Fraud
Budget Title 1 000 Number % 1 000 % Number 1 000
Economic and financial affairs 1 0.1 2
Enterpris e 9,017 27 3.0 314 1.0
Employment and social affairs 3,768 14 1.5 132 0.4
Agriculture and rural development 3,878 16 1.8 795 2.5 1 102
Energy and transport 21,046 82 9.0 3,005 9.6
Environment 10,959 25 2.7 2,312 7.4 5 601
Research 213,120 187 20.5 7,253 23.1 1 60
Information society and media 31,641 202 22.1 3,184 10.1
Fis heries and maritime affairs 1,682 3 0.3 540 1.7
Regional policy 4,528 7 0.8 996 3.2
Taxation and c ustoms union 9,695 2 0.2 1
Education and culture 36,046 204 22.3 2,917 9.3
Communication 664 5 0.5 341 1.1
Health and consumer protec tion 22,670 7 0.8 3,389 10.8
Area of freedom, s ecurity and justice 3,079 35 3.8 845 2.7
External relations 24,567 27 3.0 1,643 5.2 9 2,270
Development and relations with African, Caribbean and Pacific (ACP) States
50,712 5 0.5 579 1.8 2 68
Enlargement 2,819 5 0.5 191 0.6
Humanitarian aid 48,036 50 5.5 1,884 6.0 1 127
Commission's administration 73,310 1 0.1 1
Statistics 8,801 8 0.9 1,123 3.6
Total 580,038 913 100 31,447 100 19 3,228
7.2.2. Financial amounts involved by geographical area and Member State
Table DE3 summarizes the recoveries per geographical area, where the beneficiary of the Community funding resided. The column 'average' indicates the average amount (in EUR 1,000) per recovery.
Total 658,812 913 100 31,447 100 34 19 3,229 100 170
Most of the entities concerned have their residence in the European Union: 803 recovery orders (86.2% of 932) were issued for an amount of EUR 26.6 million (76.8% of EUR 34.7 million). 129 recovery orders (13.8%) were issued to entities residing outside the EU, for a total amount of EUR 8.1 million (23.2%). In the latter category, more than 30% of the amount of recoveries related to entities residing in ACP countries (EUR 2.6 million), followed by countries eligible for assistance under the neighbourhood policies and pre-accession assistance (EUR 2.3 million).
The highest number of recovery orders for suspected fraud (7 cases) concerned countries benefiting from neighbourhood and pre-accession assistance, of which 5 (worth up to EUR 127,000) were registered in Georgia. The highest recovery order was issued to a contractor in South Africa, which accounted for 53.4% of recovery orders issued to entities located outside the European Union.
Table DE4 gives an overview of the recoveries per Member State of residence of the entities in the European Union and the qualification of the recovery. This table details the findings for the European Union reported in table DE3. The 'average' column is the average amount, in EUR 1,000, per recovery.
Table DE 4: Recoveries (number and amounts) by Member State and qualification
Commit-Recoveries
Contractor ments Irregularity Suspected Fraud
place of origin 1 000 N % 1 000 % Average N 1 000
AT 6,770 23 2.9 1,115 4.3 48.5
BE 83,654 67 8.4 717 2.8 10.7
BU 37 6 0.8 39 0.1 6.5
CY 213 4 0.5 43 0.2 10.8
CZ 1,450 7 0.9 204 0.8 29.1
DE 70,137 55 6.9 2,699 10.4 49.1
DK 4,029 18 2.3 1,729 6.6 96.1
EE 915 9 1.1 52 0.2 5.8
EL 12,991 44 5.5 1,835 7.0 41.7 1 102
ES 67,606 66 8.3 3,706 14.2 56.2 2 458
FI 9,949 23 2.9 254 1.0 11.0
FR 47,148 95 11.9 2,905 11.2 30.6
HU 1,907 12 1.5 117 0.4 9.8
IR 1,207 10 1.3 241 0.9 24.1
IT 67,600 70 8.8 2,622 10.1 37.5
LT 289 18 2.3 187 0.7 10.4
LU 384 8 1.0 90 0.3 11.3
LV 9,759 8 1.0 194 0.7 24.3
MT 207 2 0.3 21 0.1 10.5
NL 38,245 63 7.9 3,271 12.6 51.9
PL 7,801 27 3.8 288 1.1 10.7
PT 22,103 29 3.6 590 2.3 20.3
RO 143 4 0.5 126 0.5 31.5
SK 10,143 25 3.1 212 0.8 8.5
SL 4,959 12 1.5 115 0.4 9.6
SV 27,194 26 3.3 568 2.2 21.8
UK 42,247 68 8.5 2,106 8.1 31.0 1 11
strongly determined by two cases from Spain, which account for more than 80% of the suspected fraud amounts.
7.2.3. Method of detection
For each recovery order, the Commission service that issued the order has to indicate how the irregularity or suspected fraud was detected. Six different categories have been pre-defined, two of which fall under the direct responsibility of the European
Commission: On-the-spot checks and the verification of documents by desk officers and financial officers responsible for the implementation of the commitment. Table DE5 gives a breakdown of the recoveries by method of detection.
Table DE 5: Recoveries (number and amounts) by method of detection
Method of detection N % 1 000 % Average
Community control / Check on the spot 210 22.5 7,740 22.3 36.9
Community control / Desk check documents 501 53.8 15,183 43.8 30.3
European Court of Auditors 3 0.3 85 0.2 28.3
Independent control (supervising engineers, auditors) 175 18.8 5,683 16.4 32.5
OLAF 16 1.7 1,357 3.9 84.8
Other 27 2.9 4,627 13.3 171.4
Total 932 100 34,675 100 37.2
Most of the irregularities or suspected fraud for which a recovery order was issued, were detected on the basis of Community controls: 711 recoveries (76.3%) accounting for EUR 22.9 million (66.1%). Within the `Community controls' desk controls generated were more than two times recoveries than `on-the-spot controls'.
It is interesting to note that the relatively modest share of recoveries issued on the basis of OLAF activities or detected by `Others' (4.6%) account for an amount to be recovered of 17.2%. The average amount for recoveries is EUR 37,200 but two methods of detection (OLAF and Other) have a substantial higher average. There was more than one method of detection in 8 cases. Table DE6 gives a further breakdown of the recoveries by method of detection and by qualification. The last column is the average amount per recovery.
Other 6 31.6 2,482 76.9 413.7
Total of Suspected fraud 19 100.0 3,229 100.0 169.9
Total 932 34,675 37.2
Table DE6 shows the differences between irregularities and suspected fraud when it comes to their detection. `Community desk checks of documents' was the most common method of detection of recoveries classified as irregularity for both the number of recoveries and the associated amounts, though the share of the latter drops slightly compared to the other methods of detection. Among the recoveries classified as suspected fraud, both OLAF and `Other' were the most frequent methods of detection by number of cases (respectively 42.1 % and 31.6 %). It was only in a few recoveries that desk controls led to a `suspected fraud qualification', which could imply that the design of these controls could be optimized to enhance the possibility of suspected fraud detection. The substantial higher amount per recovery for those qualified as suspected fraud compared to those qualified as irregularity must be observed.
7.2.4. Types of irregularity
The Commission services also had to indicate the type of irregularity that was detected when the recovery order was issued. The number of categories is relatively high compared to e.g. the method of detection, and the interpretation of these findings must be done with care as interpretation problems easily occur with the identification of the correct type of irregularity. It can not be excluded that the same irregularity is scored differently by different financial officers or that some of the categories used in this classification have a small overlap.
Table DE7 presents recoveries by main types of irregularities.
Table DE 7: Recoveries (number and amount) by type of irregularity
Type of irregularity Number % 1 000 % Average
Quality of action inadequate 22 2.4 3,667 10.6 167
Recoverable VAT, interest received not correctly reflected 30 3.2 844 2.4 28
Total 932 100 34,675 100 37
The most common type of recoveries qualified as irregularities is `Action not in accordance with the rules' (211 recoveries or 22.6%) followed by `Missing Documents' (188 recoveries or 20.2%). The share of the latter type falls sharply to 11.7% if the irregular amounts are considered. The third most common type is `Expenditure not covered by legal base' (137 recoveries or 14.7%). The last type for which the share exceeds 10% is `Incorrect rates used in calculating the claim' (96 recoveries or 11.3 %). In 316 recoveries, more than one type of irregularity was indicated. The most frequent pair of identified irregularities was `Recoverable VAT and interest received not correctly reflected' combined with `Incorrect rates used in calculating the claim'. This pair of irregularities occurred in 30 recoveries. The second pair was `Incorrect rates used in calculating the claim' combined with `Missing Documents', which occurred in 24 recoveries. The pair 'Expenditure not covered by legal base' combined with 'Incorrect rates used in calculating the claim' occurred in 23 cases.
Table DE8 presents the most frequently selected pairs of irregularities. Totals are not given in this table because the table is not complete: the rows indicate all the categories, whereas the columns only represent the most frequent categories of irregularities, which led to some, but not all, cells appearing twice in the table. The most important findings in this table relate to cells with values of 10 as they could hint at a certain irregularity or fraud pattern.
Table DE 8: The most frequently indicated pairs of irregularity types
Incorrect Recoverable
rates used VAT, interest
Type of irregularity in Missing Action not in
received not
calculating Documents accordance
with the rules correctly
The most common types of recoveries for which more than one irregularity was identified are `Missing documents' in 108 cases, followed by `Incorrect rates used in calculating the claim' in 106 recoveries.
Table DE9 provides an overview of the recoveries by type of irregularity, broken down by qualification of the recovery. For recoveries qualified as suspected fraud, only the categories were reported where the cells were not empty.
Table DE 9: Recoveries (number and amount) by type of irregularity by qualification
Qualification Type of irregularity Avera
ge
Number % 1 000 %
Action not implemented 36 3.9 2,296 7.3 64
Action not in accordance with the rules 211 23.1 6,449 20.5 31
Advances not correctly reflected 1 0.1 13 13
Beneficiary ineligible 2 0.2 271 0.9 136
Calculation error 53 5.8 1,423 4.5 27
Copy documents rather than originals 2 0.2 22 0.1 11
Deadline not respected 40 4.4 697 2.2 17
Expenditure declared not related to the action 46 5.0 1,926 6.1 42
Irregularity Expenditure not covered by legal base 135 14.8 3,201 10.2 24
Inappropriate accumulation of aid 4 0.4 285 0.9 71
Incomplete Documents 32 3.5 552 1.8 17
Incorrect rates used in calculating the claim 96 10.5 3,904 12.4 41
Missing Documents 187 20.5 4,045 12.9 22
Not Applicable 11 1.2 1,788 5.7 163
Public procurement procedures not respected 5 0.5 65 0.2 13
Quality of action inadequate 22 2.4 3,667 11.7 167
Recoverable VAT, interest received not correctly reflected 30 3.3 844 2.7 28
Total of Irregularity 913 100 31,447 100 34
that the share of these categories is lower (56%) if the amounts involved in the recovery are taken into account.
Among the recoveries qualified as suspected fraud, `Falsified documents' was the most frequent type of irregularity (7 recoveries or 37%). However, the amounts involved in the recovery show a different pattern: the 2 cases where the type of irregularity was `Expenditure not covered by legal base' account for 54% of the amounts, whereas the category `Falsified documents' only accounted for 7.5%.
7.3. Specific analysis
7.3.1. Irregularity versus Suspected Fraud
Only 2 % of the 932 issued recovery orders were qualified by the Commission services as suspected fraud, but they account for 9.3% of the amounts involved in the recoveries. Table DE10 provides an overview of these findings.
Table DE 10: Recoveries (number and amounts) by qualification
Commit-Irregular
ments Average amount Average
Qualification N % ( 1 000) % 1,000 ( 1 000) % 1,000
Irregularity 913 98.0 546,784 94.3 598 31,447 90.7 34.4
Suspected fraud 19 2.0 33,254 5.7 1,750 3,229 9.3 169.9
Total 932 100.0 580,038 100.0 622 34,676 100.0 37.2
The average irregular amount per recovery was almost 5 times higher in suspected fraud recoveries than in recoveries qualified as irregularity. The average for all recoveries qualified as irregularity was EUR 34,444 compared to EUR 169,947 for recoveries qualified as suspected fraud. It should be noted that the financial impact of suspected fraud cases could be revised following OLAF's investigations.
in 2008, 150 recoveries were registered in ABAC that were made in 2006. The amount to be recovered is more than EUR 5 million).
Chart DE 1: Recoveries (number and amounts) by year of commitment
6.000.000,00180
160
5.000.000,00
140
4.000.000,00120
100
Irregular amount
3.000.000,00
Number
80
2.000.000,0060
40
1.000.000,00
20
0,00
1991
1993
1995
1997
1998
1999
20 2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
Commitment Year
7.4. Recovery
This paragraph describes the payments made to the Commission further to the
issuing of the recovery orders. Once a recovery order is issued, the beneficiary has to pay back the undue payment. For the recovery orders issued in 2008, full or partial payment could be reported in 679 (72%) cases, which represents an amount of almost EUR 22 million (65%). 262 recovery orders (28%) were not paid yet, which account for almost EUR 13 million (35%).
Commission recovered the full amount of 13 contracts out of 19 cases involving suspected fraud. In 6 cases, the full amount still needs to be recovered. Five out of these six cases account for 81.9% of the amounts to be recovered in suspected fraud cases.
7.5. Conclusions
This analysis was the first attempt to examine the data from the recovery context of ABAC. As already mentioned in the methodology paragraph of the chapter, the findings should be treated carefully as this is only the first year that a limited set of data was available. The findings should not be considered as empirical evidence of the level of fraud and irregularity. Taking account of these constraints and limitations, the following cautious conclusions can be drawn.
ˇ Irregular amounts only represent 6% of the commitments for which recovery
orders were issued;
ˇ Almost 90% of the recoveries relate to commitments made for internal policies, but relative share for external actions for both the number and the amounts to be recovered is substantially higher;
ˇ The method of detection most frequently identified in recoveries qualified as irregularity (both number and amounts) is `Community control', in particular by carrying out `Desk check of documents'. It was only in a few recoveries that desk controls led to a `suspected fraud qualification', which could imply that the design of these controls could be optimized to enhance the possibility of suspected fraud detection;
ˇ The type of irregularity showed a large variance. In recoveries qualified as irregularity, `Action not in accordance with the rules' and `Missing documents' were the most frequent categories, whereas the type of irregularity most frequently observed in recoveries qualified as suspected fraud was `Falsified documents''
ANNEX 1 NUMBER OF CASES OWNRES AND AMOUNTS PERIOD 2004-2007 PER MEMBER STATE
Number of OWNRES cases and amounts for the period 2005-2008 by Member State
2005 2006 2007 2008 % %
Change Change amount
Member State cases
Cases Amount Cases Amount Cases Amount Cases Amount 2007- 2007-
2008 2008
AT 83 5 153 940 75 5 937 611 93 36 518 807 103 5 028 046 10.75% -86.23%
BE 669 9 072 828 428 12 007 783 449 22 238 675 317 12 670 490 -29.40% -43.02%
DE 1 317 78 287 465 1 140 59 113 839 1558 77 337 728 1218 65 894 342 -21.82% -14.80%
DK 64 6 884 838 67 6 068 078 54 7 208 999 44 3 963 276 -18.52% -45.02%
ES 501 48 911 216 632 32 093 701 439 18 140 369 438 19 019 835 -0.23% 4.85%
FI 34 1 992 413 28 1 464 957 34 1 764 959 21 708 003 -38.24% -59.89%
FR 349 33 837 541 314 29 109 870 327 32 981 593 311 17 548 870 -4.89% -46.79%
GR 55 8 366 740 48 11 697 070 57 2 976 051 32 1 444 289 -43.86% -51.47%
IE 22 671 846 48 2 864 369 35 2 482 972 43 1 645 639 22.86% -33.72%
IT 298 31 845 317 341 65 602 399 276 23 582 174 310 31 320 103 12.32% 32.81%
LU 1 49 291 1 263 046 N/A N/A
NL 1 794 29 912 777 1 406 37 346 132 1145 30 051 013 870 54 597 249 -24.02% 81.68%
PT 20 1 652 095 17 780 560 23 1 635 142 25 2 186 424 8.70% 33.71%
SE 60 3 250 999 47 2 164 111 43 2 318 935 70 6 331 784 62.79% 173.05%
UK 698 59 105 121 1 057 65 054 126 1072 112 872 035 1023 98 362 245 -4.57% -12.86%
EUR-15 TOTAL 5 964 318 945 136 5 649 331 353 897 5 605 372 109 452 4 826 320 983 641 -13.90% -13.74%
CY 16 379 977 9 192 160 11 750 964 14 787 523 27.27% 4.87%
CZ 19 531 275 63 2 302 704 50 2 290 130 64 5 025 048 28.00% 119.42%
EE 3 165 287 5 178 010 12 423 140 17 1 358 643 41.67% 221.09%
HU 70 1 986 224 103 7 805 235 69 6 265 722 64 5 852 076 -7.25% -6.60%
LT 35 1 515 325 39 1 599 918 41 1 283 365 57 1 544 550 39.02% 20.35%
LV 10 544 854 28 1 886 378 40 2 253 690 25 944 415 -37.50% -58.09%
MT 6 882 756 11 1 226 978 10 404 949 3 449 940 -70.00% 11.11%
PL 55 1 218 001 69 1 808 507 159 8 492 588 142 5 609 503 -10.69% -33.95%
SI 22 618 272 24 950 848 27 1 579 108 26 915 631 -3.70% -42.02%
SK 4 75 841 28 1 561 967 21 1 236 418 12 469 810 -42.86% -62.00%
EUR-10 TOTAL 240 7 917 812 379 19 512 705 440 24 980 074 424 22 957 139 -3.64% -8.10%
BG 15 456 726 19 502 373 26.67% 9.99%
EUR-27 TOTAL 6 204 326 862 948 6 028 350 866 602 6 097 401 331 570 5 344 351 618 572 -12.35% -12.39%
ANNEX 2 OWNRES CASES PER MEMBER STATE
OWNRES CASES BY MEMBER STATE
2,000
1,800
1,600
S1,400
A SE
1,200
F C
1,000
E R O
M B800
N U
600
400
200
AT BE DE DK ESFI FR GR IEIT LU NL PT SE UK CY CZ EE HU LT LV MT PL SI SK BG RO
MEMBER STATE
ANNEX 3 IMPACT ON CUSTOM PROCEDURE FREE CIRCULATION
IMPACT ON CUSTOMS PROCEDURE FREE CIRCULATION
YEAR CASES IMPACT CASES % AMOUNTS IMPACT AMOUNTS
OF TOTAL ESTABLISHED ESTABLISHED % OF
TOTAL
2004 2256 65.01% 172 902 304 82.20%
2005 3306 53.29% 263 805 274 80.71%
2006 3860 64.03% 265 767 226 75.75%
2007 3947 64.74% 327 029 733 81.49%
2008 3601 67.38% 271 199 284 77.13%
ANNEX 4 TOP 10 CHAPTER HEADINGS
TOP 10 CHAPTER HEADINGS
2006 2007 2008
CN PRODUCT AMOUNT
CASES CN PRODUCT AMOUNT
CASES CN PRODUCT AMOUNT
CASES
85 TVs and parts etc. 63 260 655 1 048 85 TVs and parts etc. 86 667 729 1 062 85 TVs and parts etc. 90 487 554 809
24 Tobacco/cigarettes 43 590 444 514 64 Footwear 48 323 370 282 24 Tobacco/cigarettes 28 701 676 344
15 Oils and fats 22 403 986 86 24 Tobacco/cigarettes 29 872 956 367 84 Machines 23 351 047 367
61 Clothing 19 965 746 233 87 (Parts of) cars/motors 22 374 405 335 61 Clothing 22 098 382 395
10 Cereals 15 022 561 48 07 Edible vegetables 21 673 533 91 62 Clothing 19 638 499 437
02 Meat 14 324 372 332 84 Machines 18 135 581 386 87 (Parts of) cars/motors 15 873 280 338
07 Edible vegetables 13 883 909 122 61 Clothing 17 609 486 381 64 Footwear 10 188 686 233
73 Articles of iron & steel 13 222 296 130 62 Clothing 15 304 036 445 39 Plastics 10 179 568 214
87 (Parts of) cars/motors 11 698 920 316 63 Other textile articles 10 420 845 79 02 Meat 10 091 686 122
17 Sugar/sugar products 11 542 566 88 73 Articles of iron & steel 8 990 712 184 07 Edible vegetables 9 772 650 154
ANNEX 5 GOOD AFFECTED BY FRAUD AND IRREGULARITY PERIOD 2005-2007
GOODS AFFECTED BY FRAUD AND IRREGULARITY PERIOD 2006-2008
2006 2007 2008
TARIFF
CODES CASES AMOU NTS TA RIFF
COD ES CASES AMOUNTS TARIFF
CODES C ASES AMOUNTS
24022090 459 35 662 152 64039998 39 30 836 774 85219000 95 28 570 466
85254099 24 15 421 737 85282190 76 23 806 063 24022090 311 24 256 682
07032000 85 13 084 516 07032000 49 20 224 990 85282190 26 18 632 857
15091010 15 11 258 441 24022090 261 17 253 111 84119100 18 9 259 219
85393190 103 9 431 755 85281298 4 13 221 267 85393190 84 7 837 683
61103099 29 8 157 065 87031018 50 9 796 834 07032000 114 7 681 578
02071410 108 7 346 237 64030000 6 6 706 330 28046900 6 5 886 029
10062098 8 7 333 377 85393190 102 6 683 582 02071410 51 5 602 979
85219000 151 6 782 215 63039118 1 6 468 283 62041100 107 5 056 821
73121071 1 6 376 418 84119190 7 5 197 247 96131000 18 4 685 240
15091090 16 6 090 434 02071410 115 4 409 392 61103099 56 4 034 071
10063000 1 5 818 641 85219000 114 4 107 588 24012010 11 3 794 514
17029099 27 5 550 293 61103099 86 3 736 346 61101190 12 3 512 930
17019910 22 5 346 516 24012010 9 3 711 817 39232100 61 3 375 377
24022000 2 5 189 984 24031010 43 3 710 185 85287220 2 2 902 796
08030019 54 5 119 457 62034231 21 3 456 608 61091000 47 2 828 342
02023090 53 5 017 135 96131000 20 3 228 490 83112000 1 2 765 919
85281294 77 4 027 664 61101190 14 3 157 134 02023090 20 2 479 389
36799690 1 3 679 969 20031030 44 3 126 633 17019999 2 2 376 061
96131000 16 3 663 965 04051000 1 3 071 722 61102099 64 2 375 301
83051000 5 2 914 700 85281294 37 2 585 595 87031018 18 2 352 256
85282190 66 2 713 408 85369010 2 2 549 674 84099100 4 2 208 179
90013000 2 2 600 076 64039938 3 2 548 693 15119019 3 2 150 803
85281220 15 2 413 933 85254091 12 2 484 027 85269120 19 2 118 755
15100010 5 2 295 170 48103900 1 2 111 908 20130001 2 2 077 722
ANNEX 6 FRAUD AND IRREGULARITIES: BREAKDOWN BY ORIGIN OF GOODS
FRAUD AND IRREGULARITY: BREAKDOWN BY ORIGIN OF GOODS DURING 2006-2008
2006 2007 2008
COUNTRY Amount CASES COUNTRY Amount CASES COUNTRY Amount CASES
China 90 328 190 1 516 China 169 495 156 1 718 China 133 997 371 1 659
Japan 31 347 676 297 US 44 250 023 780 US 40 397 999 620
US 28 921 543 688 Japan 26 484 283 270 Japan 18 798 783 220
Thailand 19 311 907 66 South Korea 16 965 037 168 Not specified 17 764 405 584
Not specified 18 218 201 798 Brazil 12 361 567 267 Bangladesh 14 020 461 181
Brazil 15 048 789 354 Taiwan 12 291 037 135 South Korea 13 256 416 97
Tunisia 14 126 527 47 Vietnam 9 154 388 61 Brazil 12 656 134 147
South Korea 12 093 869 151 Bangladesh 8 900 154 183 Switzerland 8 509 712 77
Turkey 10 644 686 101 Not specified 7 159 143 684 Malaysia 6 963 168 55
ANNEX 6.1: RECOVERY RATE (RR) BREAKDOWN BY ORIGIN OF GOODS 2006-2008
RECOVERY RATE (RR) BREAKDOWN BY ORIGIN OF GOODS 2006-2008
2006 2007 2008
COUNTRY Recovered RR COUNTRY Recovered RR COUNTRY Recovered RR
China 42 690 405 47% China 65 851 360 39% China 39 766 265 30%
Japan 13 022 284 42% US 34 009 628 77% US 20 307 596 50%
US 22 863 972 79% Japan 21 518 197 81% Japan 16 326 518 87%
Thailand 1 852 386 10% South Korea 6 972 683 41% Not specified 2 073 402 12%
Not specified 5 851 802 32% Brazil 6 717 519 54% Bangladesh 5 380 711 38%
Brazil 6 004 188 40% Taiwan 3 828 968 31% South Korea 8 037 874 61%
Tunisia 440 582 3% Vietnam 7 839 416 86% Brazil 4 647 418 37%
South Korea 10 017 939 83% Bangladesh 4 493 917 50% Switzerland 1 012 284 12%
Turkey 1 703 544 16% Not specified 4 515 313 63% Malaysia 1 596 236 23%
ANNEX 7 RECOVERY RATES OWNRES
RECOVERY RATES (RR) TRADITIONAL OWN RESOURCES
2007 2008
MEMBER RR for
STATE AMOUNT RECOVERED AMOUNT RECOVERED AMOUNT RECOVERED
2007 2007 RR 2007
IN 2008 IN 2008 2007 in
2008 2008 2008 RR 2008
AT 5 500 312 1 600 436 29.10% 36 518 807 1 956 817 5.36% 5 028 046 1 678 042 33.37%
BE 22 307 864 1 415 487 6.35% 22 238 675 5 210 766 23.43% 12 670 490 2 216 020 17.49%
BG 471 173 236 994 50.30% 456 726 253 003 55.39% 502 373 289 569 57.64%
CY 750 402 59 090 7.87% 750 964 434 503 57.86% 787 523 134 134 17.03%
CZ 1 424 688 1 080 783 75.86% 2 290 130 1 539 161 67.21% 5 025 048 1 292 086 25.71%
DE 54 472 872 39 064 385 71.71% 77 337 728 57 543 376 74.41% 65 894 342 40 753 580 61.85%
DK 7 256 158 6 334 705 87.30% 7 208 999 6 384 112 88.56% 3 963 276 3 295 562 83.15%
EE 455 754 231 635 50.82% 423 140 231 662 54.75% 1 358 643 411 651 30.30%
ES 12 925 302 9 378 359 72.56% 18 140 369 13 091 879 72.17% 19 019 835 10 662 361 56.06%
FI 1 714 218 654 884 38.20% 1 764 959 798 103 45.22% 708 003 384 491 54.31%
FR 33 315 774 11 487 611 34.48% 32 981 593 13 046 898 39.56% 17 548 870 11 235 749 64.03%
GR 2 744 851 151 948 5.54% 2 976 051 199 214 6.69% 1 444 289 387 361 26.82%
HU 6 027 841 1 283 280 21.29% 6 265 722 1 606 699 25.64% 5 852 076 2 988 620 51.07%
IE 2 482 972 1 987 124 80.03% 2 482 972 1 987 124 80.03% 1 645 639 1 544 260 93.84%
IT 31 048 300 3 528 907 11.37% 23 582 174 5 068 369 21.49% 31 320 103 2 812 556 8.98%
LT 1 286 472 408 342 31.74% 1 283 365 650 144 50.66% 1 544 550 688 732 44.59%
LU N/A 0.00% 263 046 N/A
LV 2 254 487 874 726 38.80% 2 253 690 1 103 122 48.95% 944 415 73 706 7.80%
MT 404 949 156 232 38.58% 404 949 199 936 49.37% 449 940 20 319 4.52%
NL 57 072 423 8 436 879 14.78% 30 051 013 21 100 182 70.21% 54 597 249 8 289 082 15.18%
PL 8 569 400 2 430 412 28.36% 8 492 588 2 624 790 30.91% 5 609 503 1 832 197 32.66%
PT 393 960 239 516 60.80% 1 635 142 291 150 17.81% 2 186 424 328 155 15.01%
RO 3 837 168 393 829 10.26% 3 785 318 411 598 10.87% 7 175 419 5 516 513 76.88%
SE 2 398 254 1 201 561 50.10% 2 318 935 2 089 519 90.11% 6 331 784 4 501 990 71.10%
SI 1 589 490 1 299 872 81.78% 1 579 108 1 356 182 85.88% 915 631 613 472 67.00%
SK 1 070 723 300 113 28.03% 1 236 418 475 687 38.47% 469 810 236 534 50.35%
UK 115 284 887 56 252 454 48.79% 112 872 035 59 673 336 52.87% 98 362 245 29 851 886 30.35%
EUR-27 TOTAL 377 060 694 150 489 564 39.91% 401 331 570 199 327 332 49.67% 351 618 572 132 038 628 37.55%
ANNEX 8 SEIZED AND CONFISCATED GOODS
SEIZED AND CONFISCATED GOODS (cigarettes CN 24022090)
2006 2007 2008
MEMBER ESTIMATED OR ESTIMATED OR ESTIMATED OR
STATES CASES ESTABLISHED CASES ESTABLISHED CASES ESTABLISHED
AMOUNT AMOUNT AMOUNT
AT 4 97 191 2 89 954 2 48 255
BE 16 876 349 6 365 914 1 200 390
DE 13 511 777 2 171 448 3 231 311
DK 3 78 122
ES
FI 7 223 516 8 139 145 7 257 448
FR 26 1 264 583 29 1 679 953 33 2 304 549
GR 15 3 214 309 13 2 072 640 9 971 125
IE 3 216 059 5 803 923 13 2 540 368
IT 4 345 467 13 1 694 276
LU
NL
PT 1 691 200
SE 3 48 760 3 385 600 3 116 014
UK 163 10 266 215 42 4 345 939 100 9 789 560
EUR-15 TOTAL
254 17 488 081 114 10 399 983 184 18 153 296
BG 2 52 543
CY 2 364 685 1 33 673
CZ 1 219 219
EE 1 41 304
HU 15 515 938 6 193 168 4 860 456
LT 5 109 526 3 78 624
LV 2 490 904 4 693 930 4 365 572
MT 7 780 914 2 205 013
PL 17 404 267 34 813 987 37 1 193 988
RO 19 3 219 905 16 1 134 311
SI 9 549 900 6 187 055 4 261 035
SK 3 397 874 1 144 760
ANNEX 9 PERCENTAGE CLASSIFICATION OF FRAUD PER MEMBER STATE
PERCENTAGE CLASSIFIED AS FRAUD 2006-2008
100%
90%
80%
70%
E S
A S60%
D C
50%
A U
FR40%
%
30%
20%
10%
0%
ATBEDEDKESFIFRGRIEITLUNLPTSEUKBGCYCZEEHULTLVMTPLROSISK
MEMBER STATE
ANNEX 10 AMOUNTS INVOLVED IN FRAUD
AMOUNTS INVOLVED IN FRAUD PERIOD 2006-2008
MEMBER 2006 2007 2008
STATE CASES FRAUD
CASES FRAUD IN CASES FRAUD
CASES FRAUD IN CASES FRAUD
CASES FRAUD IN
AT 75 25 2 250 974 93 31 34 103 931 103 25 1 652 584
BE 428 54 3 598 030 449 54 2 286 375 317 37 2 371 821
DE 1 140 154 13 737 742 1 558 213 16 222 344 1 218 150 13 327 586
DK 67 15 3 359 960 54 2 213 813 44 6 670 840
ES 632 249 21 659 342 439 172 7 997 274 438 188 11 106 390
FI 28 24 1 267 261 34 21 1 151 960 21 11 323 853
FR 314 32 119 450 327 153 6 294 666 311 123 4 447 123
GR 48 48 11 697 070 57 57 2 976 051 32 32 1 444 289
IE 48 35 4 134 805 43 13
IT 341 205 57 562 427 276 101 11 918 739 310 170 18 037 668
LU 1 1 49 291 1
NL 1 406 441 34 203 951 1 145 341 23 429 524 870 69 2 361 909
PT 17 8 276 018 23 2 394 483 25 5 1 676 333
SE 47 3 43 3 70 3
UK 1 057 159 10 160 937 1 072 104 9 989 927 1 023 93 9 401 126
EUR-15 5 649 1 418 159 942 453 5 605 1 258 117 113 892 4 826 925 66 821 522
BG 15 8 228 070 19 15 447 721
CY 9 3 21 855 11 3 26 456 14 3 378 947
CZ 63 5 91 486 50 3 649 307 64 4 79 553
EE 5 12 1 41 304 17 1 100 592
HU 103 59 4 499 751 69 16 2 511 001 64 26 2 448 405
LT 39 3 414 212 41 7 77 313 57 12 428 990
LV 28 1 130 892 40 25
MT 11 11 1 226 978 10 5 285 766 3 2 429 621
PL 69 19 404 267 159 68 5 972 136 142 50 1 948 060
RO 37 19 3 219 905 75 27 1 521 782
SI 24 11 579 346 27 6 187 055 26 5 277 754
SK 28 8 477 049 21 10 475 316 12 3 127 700
EUR-12 379 120 7 845 836 492 146 13 673 629 518 148 8 189 125
ANNEX 11
update 06/05/2009
AGRICULTURAL SECTOR
IRREGULARITIES
COMMUNICATED BY MEMBER STATES
UNDER
Reg. 1848/2006
YEARS 2000 - 2008
(amounts in 1,000)
YearCasesAmounts affected% of Agricultural Agricultural expenditure
expenditure
20081,198102,2590.2148,628,607
20071,548154,9930.3346,920,972
20063,24986,8250.1749,742,890
20053,193102,1120.2147,819,509
20043,40182,0640.1942,934,711
20033,237169,7240.3943,606,858
20023,285198,0790.4642,781,898
20012,415140,6850.3441,866,940
20002,967474,5621.1740,437,400
period < 2007: threshold 4,000
period > 2006: threshold 10,000
4,000
ANNEX 12
update 06/05/2009
AGRICULTURAL SECTOR
IRREGULARITIES
COMMUNICATED BY MEMBER STATES
UNDER
Reg. 1848/2006
2008
(amounts in 1,000)
Member Number of cases
Statesinvolved in Amounts affected by % of agricultural
irregularitiesirregularitiesexpenditure
AT203120.03
BE311,6060.21
BG21190.05
CYCZ
227650.11
DE1113,8170.06
DK104450.04
EE132780.31
EL394,0100.15
ES24514,9250.24
FI89840.12
FR12911,7630.12
HU67480.08
IE223970.02
ANNEX 13
STRUCTURAL MEASURES (INCLUDE THE COHESION FUND)
IRREGULARITIES* COMMUNICATED BY MEMBER STATES 1998-2008**
YEARN° OF FINANCIAL AMOUNTS TOTAL BUDGET IMPACT ON
IRREGULARITIES(in EUR)(in MEUR)BUDGET
20084,007585,249,32246,8891.25%
20073,756804,102,07745,3271.77%
20063,047647,773,95238,4301.69%
20053,417581,214,09037,1921.56%
20043,123617,099,16335,6651.73%
20032,323444,278,64230,7641.44%
20024,607579,010,65030,5561.89%
20011,337210,329,68029,8230.71%
20001,10997,160,00625,5560.38%
1999611117,563,22930,6540.38%
199834779,102,46328,3660.28%
900,000,0005,000
800,000,0004,500
700,000,0004,000
600,000,0003,500s
3,000
R500,000,000l ar i t i e
E U2,500g u
400,000,000
2,000f
i r r e
300,000,000
1,500N °
ANNEX 14
COHESION FUND
IRREGULARITIES* COMMUNICATED BY MEMBER STATES 1998-2008
250,000,000350
300
200,000,000
250
s
150,000,000
200r i t i e
E UR
g ul a
100,000,000150
f
i r r e
100N °
o
50,000,000
50
1999200020012002200320042005200620072008
Year
N° of irregularitiesFinancial amounts (in EUR)
YEARN° OF IRREGULARITIESFINANCIAL AMOUNTS (in
EUR)
ANNEX 15
PART 1
STRUCTURAL FUNDS
REGULATIONS NN. 1681/94 AND 1828/2006
-
a)ARTICLE 3/28 COMMUNICATIONS BY MEMBER STATE - 2008
MEMBER STATEERDFESFEAGGF - Guid.FIFGTOTAL
AT36137
BE1419235
BG314
CY44
CZ4830280
DE196160203379
DK437
EE6175230
EL5019181299
ES310121566493
FI1412228
FR5539498
HU2022042
IE22
IT59110010212805
LT1341027
LV1274124
MT11
NL56208264
PL20563761345
PT178162612403
SE241211146
SI1313
SK4923173
UK352113159489
TOTAL2,2521,229398493,928
MEMBER STATEERDFESFEAGGF - Guid.FIFGTOTAL
AT36137
BE1419235
BG314
CY44
CZ4830280
DE192157203372
DK437
EE5165228
EL4719181296
ES307121546488
FI1412228
FR5539498
HU1722039
IE22
IT5899910212802
LT1241026
LV1074122
MT11
NL54208262
PL19758731329
PT178162612403
SE241211146
SI1313
SK3823162
UK348112149483
ANNEX 15
PART 2
STRUCTURAL FUNDS
IRREGULARITIES REPORTED BY MEMBER STATES - 2008
REGULATIONS NN. 1681/94 AND 1828/2006
FINANCIAL AMOUNTS INVOLVED IN IRREGULARITIES
MEMBER STATEERDFESFEAGGF - Guid.FIFGTOTAL
AT2,840,77321,4132,862,186
BE529,644687,661325,8521,543,157
BG791,45312,864804,317
CY172,298172,298
CZ12,699,8491,092,802135,89313,928,544
DE12,886,2206,810,5861,176,796111,63320,985,235
DK56,646621,697678,343
EE961,051501,796498,01092,0402,052,897
EL16,545,398466,8021,428,5811,313,58519,754,366
ES128,313,3886,948,0774,965,428524,579 140,751,472
FI570,0561,184,31259,0421,813,410
FR3,543,3491,414,55140,4594,998,359
HU938,500956,5001,403,0373,298,037
IE5,303,0505,303,050
IT41,446,08617,415,21012,327,0543,730,36474,918,714
LT1,619,414151,0331,477,4723,247,919
LV279,058127,764442,8488,070857,740
MT410,761410,761
NL3,838,53624,883,97328,722,509
PL23,776,9547,946,4313,311,170309,58935,344,144
PT14,347,0858,870,5305,851,333399,34929,468,297
SE587,2253,109,93021,5743,718,729
ANNEX 16
STRUCTURAL FUNDS
IRREGULARITIES REPORTED BY MEMBER STATES
UNDER REGULATIONS NN. 1681/94 AND 1828/2006
SITUATION OF RECOVERY
PART 1 2008
-
a)AMOUNTS RECOVERED BY MEMBER STATES
MEMBER STATEERDFESFEAGGF - Guid.FIFGTOTAL
AT1,465,22621,4131,486,639
BE86,928687,66157,756832,345
BG
CY172,025172,025
CZ249,816232,205121,122603,143
DE5,524,7782,019,629360,00112,9207,917,328
DK 5,3995,399
EE 304,058 304,058
EL827,765330,122704,902 1,862,789
ES51,729,4981,507,0371,397,696 54,634,231
FI314,28565,126 379,411
FR1,065,976113,533 1,179,509
HU186,312106,488348293,148
IE
IT1,297,064689,6411,291,985361,5203,640,210
LT105,09427,516 132,610
LV54,62410,520 65,144
MT
NL682,363106,158788,521
PL1,856,1975,390,14398,445 7,344,785
PT6,096,3522,269,379333,478 8,699,209
SE39,7671,016,510 1,056,277
SI43,66943,669
SK629,61555,200 684,815
UK10,727,9957,012,08126,37511,12317,777,574
TOTAL82,983,32422,141,8444,392,108385,563 109,902,839
-
b)AMOUNTS TO BE RECOVERED BY MEMBER STATES
MEMBER STATEERDFESFEAGGF - Guid.FIFGTOTAL
AT1,110,073 1,110,073
BE258,161 134,048392,209
BG 12,86412,864
ANNEX 16
STRUCTURAL FUNDS
IRREGULARITIES COMMUNICATED BY MEMBER STATES UNDER
REGULATIONS NN. 1681/94 AND 1828/2006
SITUATION OF RECOVERY
PART 2 AMOUNTS TO BE RECOVERED
MEMBER STATEAMOU NTS AWAITING
RECOVER YAMOUNTS IN JUSTICE*AMOUNTS DECLARED
IRRECOVERABLE**
AT12,880,004356,0604,392,276
BE15,526,195827,27812,399,648
BG12,864
CY1,282
CZ12,848,346865,185
DE579,276,57968,203,492119,905,882
DK9,651,599110,9754,451,300
EE1,919,496 7,669
EL45,369,6875,125,953524,344
ES242,277,0797,699,602374,005
FI3,244,949889,145593,422
FR11,482,731670,6372,511,737
HU2,016,3841,242,372
IE1,184,401552,66078,070
IT409,218,510330,936,858102,563
LT1,197,096
LU52,932
LV2,673,629709,750
MT516,492
NL13,777,1953,289,333559,940
PL12,231,7291,030,885
PT98,182,93714,940,63115,371,723
ANNEX 17
COHESION FUND
IRREGULARITIES COMMUNICATED BY MEMBER STATES UNDER
REGULATION N. 1831/94
MEMBER STATEN° OF FINANCIAL AMOUNTS AMOUNTS AWAITING
IRREGULARITIES(in EUR)RECOVERY (in EUR)
CZ288,210
EE2129,614
EL124,937,771326,398
ES6424,827,95514,442,900
HU131,400,9381,033,292
IE39,498,140
LT88,280,56847,056
LV586,27986,279
PL7214,75465,550
PT225,655,8792,602,188
SK21,208,8031,164,379
Annex 18
PRE-ACCESSION ASSISTANCE
IRREGULARITIES REPORTED IN 2008
2008 all programmes
EC amount eligibleEC amount irregularEC amount to be recovered
CountryNo of cases
BG14055.746.35728.863.4958.989.139
CZ17901.458464.327409.173
EE5431.751292.599292.599
HR1814.111.0553.433.811472.020
HU11998.674833.807774.862
LT62.587.7302.533.680365.705
LV5879.753652.138652.138
MT13.350.556167.528167.528
PL461.046.826704.975525.403
RO2461.040.726.21121.666.47816.259.867
SI1380.00060.000
SK92.470.509794.753252.270
TR184.897.518314.763218.781
Total5231.128.528.39860.782.35429.379.485
2008 PHARE
EC amount eligibleEC amount irregularEC amount to be recovered
CountryNo of cases
BG8132.167.94015.401.4942.697.696
CZ17901.458464.327409.173
HR72.069.9121.044.981
LV1298.068120.514120.514
MT13.350.556167.528167.528
2008 ISPA
EC amount eligibleEC amount irregularEC amount to be recovered
CountryNo of cases
BG198.844.039490.132336.334
HR19.113.9431.367.091
RO79965.572.7922.197.8191.331.904
Total99983.530.7744.055.0421.668.238
2008 Transition Facility
EC amount eligibleEC amount irregularEC amount to be recovered
CountryNo of cases
BG1240.000240.000
LT1206.135206.135
LV189.74839.68739.687
SI1380.00060.000
Total4915.883545.82239.687
2008 CARDS
EC amount eligibleEC amount irregularEC amount to be recovered
CountryNo of cases
HR61.704.98289.17024.652
Total61.704.98289.17024.652
2008 Pre-accession assistance to Turkey
EC amount eligibleEC amount irregularEC amount to be recovered
CountryNo of cases
TR184.897.518314.763218.781
Total184.897.518314.763218.781
Annex 19
PRE-ACCESSION ASSISTANCE
IRREGULARITIES REPORTED IN 2008
BELOW REPORTING THRESHOLD
All programmes
EC amount irregularEC amount to be recovered
CountryNo of casesEC amount eligible
BG151.893.54064.35935.220
CZ4171.22621.51321.513
HR1538.0494.000
PL374.23610.93010.930
RO134.8565.033
SK164.0392.441
TR3571.93428.75114.744
Total283.347.880137.02782.407
PHARE
EC amount irregularEC amount to be recovered
CountryNo of casesEC amount eligible
BG7117.94851.27632.775
CZ4171.22621.51321.513
RO134.8565.033
TR3571.93428.75114.744
Annex 20
PRE-ACCESSION ASSISTANCE
IRREGULARITIES REPORTED 2002-2008
All Funds
EC amount irregularEC amount to be recovered
CountryNo of casesEC amount eligible
BG28087.635.49444.861.71613.777.568
CY55.624.61623.807
CZ5223.944.9482.690.5391.280.939
EE4128.364.6246.445.889922.875
HR2317.310.0124.533.811472.020
HU10816.399.5386.512.9811.514.045
LT46105.581.2473.427.833855.574
LV383.316.018986.154906.322
MT84.913.491267.416233.460
PL304790.760.8464.740.8721.540.929
RO8583.835.735.65857.952.81025.569.349
SI384.052.9821.554.24458.159
SK10848.879.2738.400.3123.361.501
TR256.298.426699.083579.679
Total19344.978.817.172143.097.46751.072.419
PHARE
EC amount irregularEC amount to be recovered
CountryNo of casesEC amount eligible
BG13447.056.60321.167.6153.301.301
CY55.624.61623.807
SAPARD
EC amount irregularEC amount to be recovered
CountryNo of casesEC amount eligible
BG11926.236.02218.158.49410.139.933
CZ181.022.764838.713684.105
EE204.071.8173.247.187604.350
HR41.222.218932.569447.368
HU633.838.7152.386.203861.331
LT187.614.4412.642.877447.534
LV182.068.681732.385704.710
PL17211.141.4522.269.4751.196.385
RO382186.677.40720.549.0379.632.458
SI311.557.0101.305.23822.080
SK142.408.1311.965.6951.292.493
Total859247.858.65855.027.87226.032.747
ISPA
EC amount irregularEC amount to be recovered
CountryNo of casesEC amount eligible
BG2614.102.8695.295.607336.334
CZ119.960.204842.474
EE413.223.492170.777169.314
HR29.113.9431.367.091
LT796.848.5802.332476
PL21426.556.73469.7435.456
RO2253.331.008.66110.616.7783.722.919
SK127.149.20049.05449.054
Total2873.937.963.68318.413.8564.283.553
ANNEX 21
IRREGULARITIES COMMUNICATED BY MEMBER STATES AND CANDIDATE COUNTRIES
ISPAPHARESAPARD
EC amount
to be recovere d
EC amount
to be recovered
No of casesEC amount eligibleEC amount irregularNo of casesEC amount eligibleEC amount irregularNo of casesEC amount eligibleEC amount irregularEC amount to
be recovered
Year
20026113.4066.122
200318281.347.575893.147 52320.163.309630.939292.379345.941.7513.796.52123.403
200426279.027.957251.987223.8246813.029.1144.138.964730.68813350.515.5905.982.992173.234
200525165.424.7406.160.53547615165.515.8727.784.0632.483.16416553.103.9362.826.397476.509
200626340.625.9811.145.646244207249.496.40713.656.7564.512.19416443.527.6793.036.9001.045.272
200787 1.887.893.2515.901.377 2.390.7719056.456.80515.379.6851.222.10515036.480.53810.338.7627.757.774
200899983.530.7744.055.042 1.668.23818379.190.07626.731.25710.871.57221358.289.16529.046.30016.556.555
Total287 3.937.963.68318.413.856 4.283.553751783.851.58368.321.66320.112.101859247.858.65855.027.87226.032.747
ANNEX 22
IRREGULARITIES REPORTED BY MEMBER STATES IN 2008 AGRICULTURE, STRUCTURAL AND COHESION FUNDS, OWN RESOURCES
AGRICULTURESTRUCTURAL FUNDSCOHESION FUNDOWN RESOURC ESALL SECTORS
CASESTOT AL AMOUNTSCASESTOTAL AMOUNTSCASESTOTAL AMOUNTSCASESTOT AL AMOUNTSCASESTOT AL AMOUNTS
AT20311,608372,862,1861035,028,0461608,201,840
BE311,605,690351,543,15731712,670,49038315,819,337
BG2119,4704804,31719502,373251,426,160
CY4172,29814787,52318959,821
CZ22764,6808013,928,544288,210645,025,04816819,806,482
DE1113,816,77137220,985,2351,21865,894,3421,70190,696,348
DK10445,2417678,343443,963,276615,086,860
EE13278,131282,052,8972129,614171,358,643603,819,285
EL394,010,0469619,754,366124,937,77143819,019,83558547,722,018
ES24514,924,635488140,751,4726424,827,95521708,003818181,212,065
FI8983,842281,813,41031117,548,87034720,346,122
FR12911,763,441984,998,359321,444,28925918,206,089
HU6747,522393,298,037131,400,938645,852,07612211,298,573
IE22397,49725,303,05039,498,140431,645,6397016,844,326
IT21153,969,74080274,918,71431031,320,1031,323160,208,557
LT24803,754263,247,91988,280,568571,544,55011513,876,791
LU113,3751263,0462276,421
LV13208,14422857,740586,27925944,415652,096,578
MT137,8141410,7613449,9405898,515
NL301,183,63926228,722,50987054,597,2491,16284,503,397
PL461,126,13732935,344,1447214,7541425,609,50352442,294,538
PT1203,629,92840429,468,297225,655,879252,186,42457140,940,528
RO757,175,419757,175,419
SE10214,0651463,718,729706,331,78422610,264,578
SI138,80813430,93326915,631401,385,372
SK11639,613629,533,55221,208,80312469,8108711,851,778
UK7225,775483123,321,4431,02398,362,2451,513221,909,463
TOTAL1,133102,259,3663,868528,920,41114056,328,9115,344351,618,57210,485 1,039,127,260
| publicatiedatum | 17-07-2009 |
|---|---|
| kenmerk | 12139/09 ADD 2 |
