COUNCIL OFBrussels, 10 July 2007
THE EUROPEAN UNION
11724/07 ADD 2
GAF 2 FIN 349
COVER NOTE
from:
Secretary-General of the European Commission, signed by Mr Jordi AYET PUIGARNAU, Director
date of receipt: 9 July 2007
to: Mr Javier SOLANA, Secretary-General/High Representative
Subject: Commission Staff Working Document - Annex to the Report from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council - Protection of the financial interests of the Communities - Fight against fraud - Annual report 2006
-
-Statistical Evaluation of irregularities- Own Resources, Agriculture,
Structural Measures, Pre-Accession Funds Year 2006
Delegations will find attached Commission document SEC(2007) 938.
COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES
Brussels, 6.7.2007 SEC(2007) 938
COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT
Annex to the
REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND
THE COUNCIL
Protection of the financial interests of the Communities Fight against fraud Annual
report 2006
STATISTICAL EVALUATION OF IRREGULARITIES- OWN RESOURCES,
AGRICULTURE, STRUCTURAL MEASURES, PRE-ACCESSION FUNDS
YEAR 2006
[COM(2007) 390 final]
TABLE OF CONTENTS
-
1.THE SITUATION IN 2006 ......................................................................................... 4
1.1. Introduction .................................................................................................................. 4
1.2. Key Facts...................................................................................................................... 6
1.2.1. Traditional Own Resources.......................................................................................... 6
1.2.2. Agriculture ................................................................................................................... 6
1.2.3. Structural Measures...................................................................................................... 6
1.2.4. Pre-accession Funds ..................................................................................................... 7
PART I - REVENUES ............................................................................................................... 8
-
2.TRADITIONAL OWN RESOURCES (ANNEXES 1-10) ......................................... 8
2.1. Reporting Discipline .................................................................................................. 10
2.2. General Trends ........................................................................................................... 12
2.2.1. Method of detection ................................................................................................... 12
2.2.2. Types of irregularity and fraud .................................................................................. 13
2.2.3. Amounts involved ...................................................................................................... 13
2.2.4. Impact on the budget .................................................................................................. 14
2.2.5. Data main sectors TOR .............................................................................................. 14
2.3. Specific Analysis........................................................................................................ 14
2.3.1. Specific facts TOR ..................................................................................................... 14
3.3.1. Analysis of support measures..................................................................................... 29
3.3.2. Irregularity versus Suspected fraud............................................................................ 35
3.4. Recovery and penalties .............................................................................................. 37
3.5. Conclusions ................................................................................................................ 39
-
4.STRUCTURAL MEASURES (Annexes 14-17) ....................................................... 42
4.1. Reporting Discipline .................................................................................................. 42
4.2. General Trends ........................................................................................................... 47
4.2.1. Detection methods...................................................................................................... 49
4.2.2. Types of irregularity................................................................................................... 49
4.2.3. Amounts involved ...................................................................................................... 50
4.2.4. Impact on budget........................................................................................................ 51
4.2.5. Trends related to the programming period 2000-2006 .............................................. 52
4.3. Specific analysis......................................................................................................... 55
4.3.1. Irregularities affecting the different funds ................................................................. 55
4.3.2. Irregularities vs suspected frauds ............................................................................... 57
4.3.3. Irregularities detected before payment....................................................................... 60
4.4. Recovery .................................................................................................................... 61
4.5. Conclusions ................................................................................................................ 62
-
1.THE SITUATION IN 2006
1.1. Introduction
Community legislation provides for the protection of the Community's financial interests in all areas of activity
-
1.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 EUR 4,000 for agriculture
2 or more than EUR 10,000 for
traditional own resources, structural and cohesion funds. This applies at all stages in the procedure for recovering monies unduly paid or not received.
Regulation No 595/91 specifies the requirement for the agriculture sector, Regulations Nos 1681/94
3 and 1831/944 for structural measures, as amended,
respectively by Regulations Nos 2035/2005 and 2168/2005, 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 Accession 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
-
5.The rules on reporting irregularities to the Commission have
been retained, but the communication procedure is now part of the implementing
Regulations6 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 this regulation (for own resources the relevant provisions are contained in Article 6, paragraph 5) 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.
The distinction between irregularities and fraud is that fraud is a criminal act that can only be determined by the outcome of judicial proceedings
-
7.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 is 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"
distribution of fraud or on the efficiency of the services which contribute to the protection of financial interests.
1.2. Key Facts
Annex 22 gives an overview of all irregularities communicated by Member States under Regulation No. 595/91 for the agriculture sector, Regulations Nos 1681/94 and 1831/94 for structural measures and Regulation No 1150/2000 for own resources.
In general, the number of irregularities notified for the year 2006 has slightly decreased by 0.3%.
The total number of irregularities has increased for agriculture, cohesion and pre- accession funds. It has decreased for own resources and the structural funds.
However, the total amounts affected by irregularities notified for the year 2006 has increased by 11.5%.
The total amounts affected by irregularities have increased for own resources, structural and cohesion funds. It has decreased for agriculture and pre-accession funds.
The following paragraphs will provide an overview concerning the different sectors of the budget analysed in this document.
1.2.1. Traditional Own Resources
In 2006, the number of cases of irregularities communicated by the Member States decreased from 5,943 to 5,243. However, the amount of TOR increased from EUR 328 million to EUR 353 million.
Communications from the ten new Member States have continued to grew since their accession in 2004. This is a result of increasing familiarity with the requirements of the reporting system.
was about EUR 703 million, EUR 517 million of which concerned the Structural Funds and EUR 187 million related to the Cohesion Fund. Irregularities reported in this sector were equivalent to 1.83% of the budget allocated to structural measures in 2006.
Since the establishment of the information system of irregularities (1994), Member States have reported 22,371 irregularities, of which 21,574 related to the Structural Funds and 797 to the Cohesion Fund.
1.2.4. Pre-accession Funds
In 2006 Member States and Acceding Countries sent to OLAF 1,207 reports, 384 of which first communications and 823 were updates concerning all pre-accession funds. The total amount affected by irregularities reported in 2006 was EUR 12.3 million, of which from PHARE EUR 6.9 million (198 irregularity reports), SAPARD EUR 4.3 million (160) and ISPA EUR 1.2 (26).
In 2006 the number of cases reported (first communications) increased by 14.2% on the previous year.
PART I - REVENUES
-
2.TRADITIONAL OWN RESOURCES (ANNEXES 1-10)
The Community must have access to Traditional Own Resources ('TOR')9 under the
best possible conditions. In conformity with Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1150/2000
10 Member States are responsible for making available to the Commission,
within the deadlines set, TOR that they have established. The established amounts that relate to recovered or unchallenged guaranteed customs or agricultural duties and which are to be made available are entered into the so called A-account. An exception is made for TOR established by a Member State but not yet recovered and for which no security has been provided or where the established amount has been disputed. Member States may enter these TOR amounts in a B-account and not make them available until they are actually recovered in accordance with the rules. Most fraud and irregularity cases relate to these B-account entries.
Monitoring of establishment and recovery of TOR
In order to get the right picture of Member States' activities in recovering TOR, it is important to keep in mind that more than 95% of all amounts of TOR established are subsequently recovered without particular problems. They are entered in the A- account and made available to the Commission. This covers most of the 'normal' import flows where the release for free circulation gives rise to a customs debt. The remaining items are entered in the B-account. These proportions should be borne in mind when evaluating and appreciating Member States' recovery activity. In return for performing this 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 in revenues, the Commission (DG Budget as delegated Authorising Officer) monitors Member States' activities concerning establishment and recovery of TOR in several different ways.
These three methods allow the Commission to monitor Member States' performance without interfering too much in the day to day operations of the Member States.
Procedure for managing Member States' requests for write-off
Member States must take all requisite measures to ensure that the amounts corresponding to the entitlements established are made available to the Commission. This requirement is shown in Article 17(1) of Regulation No 1150/2000. According to that same article, Member States are only released from this obligation in case of established entitlements which prove irrecoverable either:
(a) for reasons of force majeure; or
(b) for other reasons which cannot be attributed to them.
Amounts of established entitlements shall be declared irrecoverable by a decision of the Member State finding that they cannot be recovered. Debts may be declared irrecoverable by a Member State decision at any time, or the TOR must be deemed irrecoverable by the 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. However, where the amount of TOR written-off exceeds a threshold of EUR 50,000 the write-off must be reported to the Commission. For amounts under EUR 50,000, Member States do not have to communicate these cases to the Commission on their own initiative. But the Commission can ask for such a communication when it considers it difficult to evaluate a case during an inspection when these cases are regularly scrutinised.
An amendment to Regulation No 1150/2000 in 200411 introduced a 5-year timeframe
within which a Member State has to provide the Commission with information on amounts of established entitlements of TOR deemed irrecoverable. As a result it is expected that before 2009 there will be a marked increase in requests by Member States for write-off of established but (deemed) irrecoverable TOR amounts. The increase will consist of old cases that have not yet been reported to the Commission, but that meet the 5-year deadline for application of the write-off procedure. DG Budget is prepared to deal with the increase anticipated in the number of cases in the future. A new IT-application called WOMIS
.Table OR 1: Write-off requests treated in 2006 results
Commission position cases % cases % amount
NON SUITABLE EXEMPTION REQUEST
11 5.60% 2,887,595.06 8.90%
WRITE-OFF ACCEPTED 68 34.90% 10,089,853.73 31.30%
REQUIRED ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
57 29.20% 14,655,135.92 45.50%
WRITE-OFF REFUSED 59 30.30% 4,604,016.59 14.30%
TOTAL 195* 100% 32,236,601.30 100%
-
*During 2006, there were 33 cases partially accepted, classified as not suitable, refused or sent back to Member States for additional information. For this reason the 162 cases gave rise to 195 "apparent" positions.
Examination of Member States diligence constitutes a very effective mechanism for gauging their activity in the field of recovery and encourages national administrations to intensify their recovery actions in terms of regularity, efficiency and effectiveness, since a lack of diligence leading to failure to recover will result in Member States having to foot the bill.
Particular cases of failure of recovery of TOR by Member States
Where TOR are not established because of an administrative error by a Member State the principle of financial responsibility
15 is applied by the Commission. During
2006 EUR 33,412,388.57 was paid by Member States, separate from belated interest, because of this principle.
All together the cases of financial responsibility DG Budget has been dealing with, until end 2006, represent nearly EUR 113 million. This money is transferred back to the Member States in proportion to their contribution to the EU budget; the main objective therefore is to encourage individual Member States to step up the performance of their administrations and to address weaknesses leading to a loss of TOR and national taxes.
fraud and irregularities in TOR. This political objective should motivate all stakeholders to take this activity very seriously. The OWNRES-database is an important tool for providing data for global analyses of fraud and irregularities and presents valuable information to the budgetary authority
17
Because all TOR-amounts exceeding EUR 10,000 in the B-account represent an irregularity (fraud included) by definition a match between the two from the perspective of the B-account should be 100%
-
18.However comparison in 2003
between the B-account and OWNRES did not give this result, so the Commission drew attention to this in ACOR
19 meetings. Since 2003 comparisons have improved
from 30% agreement (2003) up to 90% by the end of 2006. Member States' efforts to improve the accuracy and completeness of OWNRES are thus visible. Nonetheless the database can not be considered fully reliable yet using this comparative measure, if the equation is extended to incorporate cases that have not been subject to establishment of a debt, for example smuggled cigarettes that are seized and subsequently confiscated and for which no customs debts arises (otherwise in these circumstances the duties would be transformed into a kind of extra penalty). Regarding this last category, the data contained in OWNRES is far from trustworthy. Member States should address this shortcoming urgently
20.
Moreover, one should be wary of trying to use OWNRES as a source of data on fraud alone isolated from irregularity. This is because (until a Court judgement is obtained) the distinction between fraud and irregularity has usually been made on subjective grounds. This means there are great variations between national administrations and so the results cannot be relied upon.
With these considerations in mind, please find some analyses hereunder.
Year of detection versus year reported
Cases should be included in OWNRES at the moment of first discovery of the irregularity or fraud case. As a result, the year of registration and the year of discovery of the irregularity or fraud can diverge. Member States continually add new cases and update existing cases. This means the query-information generated by OWNRES is dynamic. For instance, the number of irregularities and fraud in last years report was 4,982 cases whereas the number of cases in 2005 at this moment is 5,943 cases
2.2. General Trends
The number of cases communicated to OWNRES decreased in 2006 by 12% when compared to 2005 (from 5,943 to 5,243), but the amount of TOR increased by over 7% (up from EUR 328 million to EUR 353 million
)22. The higher base-level of the
number of cases compared to 2003 can be explained by Member States reporting more of their cases to OWNRES, the entry of cases of belatedly discharged Transit operations and the accession of new Member States. The number and proportion of belatedly discharged Transit operations decreased compared to 2005 (by well over a third
23). Communications from the ten new Member States have continued to grow
since their accession in 2004 (2006 shows a 47% growth compared with 2005 and 326% compared with 2004). If the comparisons are made using amounts of TOR the growth rates are 123% and 313% respectively. This is a result of increasing familiarity with the requirements of the reporting system.
In total, for the period 1989-2006, the OWNRES database contains 38,138 cases24.
Significant changes in the number of registrations in 2006 compared with 2005 can be seen for Belgium (-44%) and the Netherlands (-25%). Significant changes in amounts can be seen in Germany (-26%), Italy (+122%), Netherlands (+81%) and Spain (-44%).
2.2.1. Method of detection
Various methods of detection may have revealed the irregularity or fraud. Judging from the 2006 data the most fruitful methods for are the primary national inspections (either physical inspections or inspections of documents the latter category featuring most frequently) and the national post-clearance inspections.
Chart OR 1: Method of detection 2005-2006
Method of detection 2005-2006
primary to post-clearance inspections which can be seen in 2006 is the beginning of a trend related to ongoing changes in declaration procedures. The relative importance of inspections by anti-fraud services decreased slightly from 9.4% in 2005 down to
7.6% in 2006.
2.2.2. Types of irregularity and fraud
A breakdown of frauds and irregularities by customs procedure25 and by type
confirms that release for free circulation is the customs procedure most commonly affected by fraud. Smuggling, misdescription and false declarations (incorrect value, origin, preferential arrangements) are the most important types of fraud.
The goods (defined by the first two numbers of the CN-code) most affected by fraud and irregularities in 2006, as in previous years, are tobacco products (CN 24) and TVs and parts etc. (CN 85). Sugar (CN 17) decreased in importance compared to 2005 as did fish (CN 03), glass and glassware (CN 70) and optical instruments (CN 90), whereas meat (CN 02), engines and parts (CN 84), inorganic products (CN 28) and oils and fats (CN 15) came up. The textile sector (CN 61 and CN 62) remains relatively stable with CN 62 involving EUR 10.3 million duty in 11
th place in 200626.
Table OR 2: Top 10 of first two numbers of CN Code most affected by irregularities 2005-2006
27
2005 2006
CN PRODUCT MLN CN PRODUCT MLN
85 TVs and parts etc. 69 85 TVs and parts etc. 62.3
24 Tobacco / cigarettes 30.9 24 Tobacco / cigarettes 27.6
84 Engines and parts 24.1 15 Oils and fats 22.8
17 Sugar / sugar-products 23.7 61 Clothing 19.8
61 Clothing 22.1 28 Inorganic products 16.1
87 Cars / motors and parts 17.4 10 Cereals 15.1
62 Clothing 8.9 02 Meat 14.8
70 Glass and glassware 8.8 84 Engines and parts 14.7
change because of additional information or judicial procedures, or the debt may be deemed irrecoverable because of the debtors' financial problems. The Recovery Rate ('RR') expresses the percentage of the initially established debt that is actually recovered. It is dynamic, constantly changing, because of the ongoing process of recovery in the Member States. The RR for 2006 is currently 32.13%
-
29.The RR
differs from Member State to Member State. This may be caused by, for instance, the type of fraud or irregularity, the type of debtor or judicial procedures involved.
2.2.4. Impact on the budget
The amounts that BUDG/B3 monitored in 2006 via OWNRES have a financial impact of EUR 352,879,219. Over the last decade the amounts have ranged from EUR 162,380,355 (year 1996) up to EUR 516,655,940 (year 2000).
Chart OR 2: Financial Impact TOR 1996-2006
Financial Impact TOR 1996-2006
600
u r o
500
n E
400
M i l l i o
300Total Member States
200
100
9 67
9 8 2
19
1 99
1 9
1 99 9 1
2 2 2 3 5
2 2 4
2 2 6
2.3.2. Irregularity vs Suspected Fraud
Classification of irregularities and fraud by Member States
OWNRES cases refer to custom operations involving irregularity or fraud. Of all the cases registered in 2006 fraud is specified in 22% (1,155 of 5,243 registered cases) against 20% in 2005 (1,182 of 5,943 registered cases)
-
31.Differences in categorisation
between Member States are relatively large. For instance in 2006 the United Kingdom had only 1 out of 882 cases categorised as fraud (equivalent to 0.11%) whereas Germany has 9.36% (80 out of 855 cases communicated) and the Netherlands 30.52% (405 out of 1,327 cases notified). For 2005 the figures were respectively 0.58% (4 out of 687), 13.07% (148 out of 1,123) and 20.78% (368 out of 1,771). These figures demonstrate that the categorisation of irregularity and fraud in OWNRES is not yet fully reliable.
Estimated level of fraud
According to OWNRES the amount of TOR due in fraud cases rose in 2006. As part of the overall amount of registered irregularities and fraud cases the share of fraud was EUR 134,396,443 (equivalent to approximately 0.94% of the total amount of own resources in 2006
-
32)compared to EUR 105,308,970 in 200533. The amount
recovered in these cases was EUR 21,948,640 in 2005, which gives a recovery rate of 20.8% and EUR 18,227,337 in 2006 which gives a recovery rate of 13.6%. The recovery rate in cases of fraud is clearly much lower than that for irregularities since the overall recovery rate in 2006 is 32.13%.
2.4. 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 other Commission services, including OLAF.
Once a debt is established a Member States can only be discharged from the obligation to make TOR available to the Commission in case of force majeure or because of reasons which can not be attributed to the Member State concerned. As Member States are responsible for making TOR available to the EU Budget they need to prove that these circumstances have occurred. Where debts are not established although they should have been Member States are held liable for the TOR foregone. In 2006 several payments were received from Member States this totalled EUR 33 million. Some actions are still ongoing and new cases are being given appropriate follow up.
entered in OWNRES. Regarding the comparison between the B-account and OWNRES, DG Budget is appreciative of the attention Member States have given to this. As a result of Member States' efforts reconciliation between OWNRES and the
B-account gives 90% agreement now whereas it had been 30%.
Regarding the reliability of the information in OWNRES making a distinction between irregularity and fraud or analysing fraud separately is risky and the output is not very useful. Only Court decisions make it certain whether a case is one of irregularity or fraud, whereas this distinction currently is made by the administrations of the Member States. The figures in OWNRES showing marked differences in cases of fraud and irregularity between Member States point that out clearly. OWNRES can only be used for global analysis and monitoring. For cases where there is no debt (smuggled goods that are seized and confiscated) reporting is very far from being reliable and Member States should address this situation urgently by communicating all such cases according to the Community legislation.
The amounts of TOR at stake according to OWNRES are up to EUR 350 million in 2006 and considering that the average recovery rate is around 30%, and in cases of fraud much lower, one cannot take the view that post-clearance recovery is simple. The irregularities and frauds demanding Member States' attention are very diverse, notably TVs, meat, oils, clothing, cars and of course tobacco. The origin of goods found is equally varied, even though some countries remain continuously present at the top of the rankings. For instance goods coming from some countries in the Far East represent a high risk profile as do goods coming from a particular area in North America. When fraud or irregularity is discovered by a Member State it is mostly in the customs procedure of free circulation (misdescription, undervaluation or simply smuggling) as in previous years.
EUR-10 Member States are getting accustomed to OWNRES. Their registrations show marked growth from the moment of accession, although basically the same criticism applies as to the completeness of the database, in particular for non- established amounts (see above).
PART II - EXPENDITURE
-
3.AGRICULTURAL EXPENDITURE (ANNEXES 11-13)
The analysis is a descriptive analysis based on the communications forwarded by Member States under Regulation (EEC) No. 595/91 in the budget year 2006 (16 October 2005 15 October 2006).
Member States must only inform the Commission of irregularities involving more than EUR 4,000.
In 2006, OLAF processed 15,513 communications under Regulation (EEC) No 595/91. A high percentage of these communications, (12,264), were updates of cases that had been reported prior to 2006.
Member States reported 3,249 new irregularities compared with 3,193 in 2005. The total amount affected in 2006 was about EUR 87 million, as against approximately EUR 102 million in 2005.
Irregularities notified in this sector represent only 0.17% of the agricultural budget.
Annex 12 gives an overview per Member State, indicating the number of irregularities, the amounts involved and the percentage of EAGGF expenditure.
Between 1971 and 2006, Member States reported 41,961 irregularities, involving some EUR 3,334 million. The total amount affected by irregularities detected before payment was approximately EUR 273 million and after payment approximately EUR 3,061 million. At the end of 2006 the total amount affected by irregularities that still needed to be cleared in the AFIS/ECR-database was EUR 1,346.
The following table gives an overview of the situation at the beginning of 2006 and the end of 2006.
Table AG 1: Task Force Recovery effect36
BUDGET YEAR 2006
2006: BEGINNING2006: END
MScasestotal amounts amounts balance to be amounts balance to be
affected in cleared in *)cleared in casestotal amounts
affected in cleared in *)cleared in MS
AT1,08611,814,5759,119,0912,695,4841,14312,335,8669,446,9022,888,964AT
BE769116,978,88942,202,80674,776,083799111,539,75142,522,36569,017,386BE
CY849,81949,819 1096,82196,821 CY
CZ 15299,23278,233220,999CZ
DE9,063391,153,149291,341,31399,811,8369,427377,328,503298,830,52078,497,983DE
DK1,10844,915,36943,089,5021,825,8671,12645,262,50544,056,4781,206,028DK
EE756,384 56,3841099,31942,74456,575EE
EL1,316171,262,970106,805,17364,457,7971,428164,250,907107,306,25056,944,657EL
ES6,129435,457,866144,846,301290,611,5656,582445,937,971159,130,102286,807,870ES
FI1822,775,1442,470,083305,0612053,060,3212,710,995349,326FI
FR4,363203,281,003121,439,07281,841,9314,917221,196,935130,385,65890,811,277FR
HU540,7509,24631,504629,41029,410 HU
IE1,05044,552,06442,812,9001,739,1641,12945,230,04644,043,3311,186,715IE
IT4,4521,631,023,453228,388,2381,402,635,2154,5561,558,461,190872,775,685685,685,505IT
LT32422,386318,572103,81458698,048570,819127,229LT
LU15151,698118,98232,71616154,894143,18111,713LU
LV113,19413,194 113,17613,176 LV
MT MT
NL2,323115,411,28195,203,70720,207,5742,410119,054,711103,559,32815,495,383NL
PL76953,549733,617219,9321311,614,0301,321,586292,444PL
PT1,88466,724,45833,269,72633,454,7322,17869,498,46440,099,80629,398,658PT
SE6998,064,2837,462,855601,4297499,021,1968,255,547765,649SE
SI 10232,894 232,894SI
SK SK
UK4,863147,537,998120,940,41226,597,5865,055148,829,942123,088,40025,741,542UK
total39,4313,392,640,2821,290,634,6092,102,005,67341,9613,334,246,1331,988,507,3351,345,738,797 total
*) "amounts cleared in " includes also amounts detected before payment and amounts charged to the Commission and/or Member State (Clearance of Accounts procedure)
The left-hand side of the table gives an overview of the situation at the beginning of 2006; the right-hand side gives an overview at the end of 2006. This implies that the figures on the left include the irregularities reported in the period 1971 2005 and the figures on the right include the irregularities reported in the period 1971 2006.
At the beginning of 2006 the balance to be cleared was EUR 2,102 as at the end of 2006 the balance to be cleared was EUR 1,346 million. The differences can be mainly explained by the above mentioned efforts from the Task Force Recovery: the closure, clearing and revision of a large number of reported irregularities.
3.1. Reporting discipline
In the Annual Report 2005, the annex on the statistical evaluation of irregularities noted that the reporting discipline of Member States had improved in 2005, but also that further improvements were still necessary. It also noted that the level of compliance of a Member State seems to decrease as the total amount of support measures increases. This still holds true, even though reporting discipline continued
to improve in 2006.
Timely reporting
Under Regulation (EEC) No. 595/91 Member States are required to report at the latest within 2 months after the end of the quarter in which an irregularity was detected and/or new information about an irregularity that has already been reported becomes known. Almost all Member States complied with this obligation. Only Germany failed to comply with this obligation and did not forward any communications on time.
Electronic format
The system of electronic reporting of irregularities, AFIS/ECR-module Reg. 595/91, introduced in 2001 for agriculture, has led to an improvement in data quality and in the timeliness of reporting. It has also reduced misunderstandings and misinterpretations and has consequently improved compliance with the regulations.
AFIS/ECR-module Reg. 595/91 is, however, not used by all Member States. At the end of 2006, two Member States (Germany and Spain) were still not using this module. Between them, Germany and Spain account for almost 36% (1,172 cases) of the total number of cases reported (3,249 cases) and for approximately 55% (8,640 communications) of the total number of communications (15,513).
Year of detection vs year reported
Member States are obliged to report the date, or dates, on which the irregularity was committed and the date of discovery of the irregularity. Table AG2 shows the time gap between the date on which the irregularity took place, the discovery and the reporting of the irregularity. The table shows that although the reporting discipline of Member States has improved, it still needs attention. In 273 cases, Member States did not indicate the date on which the irregularity took place. Greece, France, Ireland and Portugal should pay particular attention to this obligation. In 23 cases Member States indicated an error value.
Table AG 2: Time gap between irregularity, discovery and reporting
CASES BUDGET YEAR 2006
CASES AVERAGE TIME GAPAVERAGE TIME GAPAVERAGE
indication of dateBETWEENBETWEENTIME
on which the irregularity took placeIRREGULARITY AND DISCOVERYDISCOVERY AND REPORTINGGAP
MS Totalblankerror valuedatedaysmonthsyearsdaysmonthsyearsMS
AT931921,091363.0434141.24.2AT
BE57354686231.923980.72.5BE
CY7718660.513740.40.9CY
CZ99302100.816250.41.3CZ
DE4892134741,314433.626790.74.3DE
DK3333855282.317960.52.8DK
EE1010401131.120170.61.6EE
EL11124871,104363.0354121.04.0EL
ES683683831272.3359121.03.3ES
FI3333937312.615850.43.0FI
FR548689471753252.1321110.92.9FR
HU338830.213340.40.6HU
IE94276723380.6363121.01.6IE
IT140140932312.6444151.23.8IT
LT303022070.613640.41.0LT
LU332,872947.919360.58.4LU
LV1127390.721970.61.3LV
MTMT
NL87186663221.8405131.12.9NL
PL6767436141.212540.31.5PL
PT3591451213892292.423280.63.1PT
SE8080926302.527190.73.3SE
SI11932312.618560.53.1SI
SKSK
UK3112309463151.3434141.22.5UK
total3,249273232953847282.3322110.93.2total
more difficult when the authorities have informed the beneficiary of the control results and no immediate recovery action has been undertaken.
One cause for concern is that Member States are reporting a relatively high proportion of cases (approximately 21%) in which the irregularity or fraud took place more than four (4) years ago, i.e. before 2002. Table AG3 gives an overview. This is of particular concern as the chances of recovery decreases with time. Member States were unable to indicate the year(s) in which the irregularity took place in 296 cases (273 (blank) + 23 (error)).
Table AG 3: Year in which the irregularity started or was committed
IRREGULARITY REPORTED IN 2006 AND THE YEAR IN WHICH THE IRREGULARITY STARTED
MS < 1997 1997199819992000200120022003200420052006blankerror TOTAL
AT1201262741354193
BE1121672871357
CY77
CZ3429
DE34131023626149494611215213489
DK13254311433
EE3710
EL13612222411824111
ES29192122375972949116574683
FI1567310133
FR19499204157483416169689548
HU33
IE1126212794
IT69256101316282520140
LT324330
LU1113
LV11
NL1444141524164187
PL36201167
PT1123451611451359
SE22927830280
SI11
persons involved in irregularities. Table AG4 provides an overview of the reporting of nominal data.
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 2006 and to give an overall view for the period 1971 - 2006.
One should bear in mind that Member States must only inform the Commission of irregularities involving more than EUR 4,000.
3.2.1. Method of detection
The common agricultural policy (CAP) was reformed in 1992 based on a system of direct aid for farmers, which significantly increased the number of beneficiaries but also the risk of irregularity and fraud. The integrated administration and control system (IACS) was therefore introduced by Council Regulation (EEC) No 3508/92 to meet those risks. The system consists of five elements:
-
1.a computerised database
-
2.an identification system for agricultural land parcels,
-
3.a system of identification and registration of animals,
-
4.aid applications,
-
5.an integrated system for administrative controls and field inspections.
In the EU, 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 2006, more than 68 % of EAGGF-Guarantee expenditure (budget 1A) was processed through IACS.
Member States are also under an obligation to perform certain controls on the basis of Council Regulation (EEC) No 4045/89
and Council Regulation (EEC) No 386/90.
3.2.2. Types of irregularity
Member States are also obliged to report and to describe the practices adopted (modus operandi) of the detected irregularity. Reporting of the modus operandi and the type of irregularity by some Member States improved during 2006.
The Annual Report 2005 noted that "almost all Member States seem to have developed a preference for one or two codes which permit no detailed breakdown". The latter was a reaction from the Member States to a first attempt by OLAF to estimate the level of (suspected) fraud in the agricultural sector on the basis of the types of irregularity and modus operandi reported. By indicating only one or two (general) codes, it became more difficult to estimate the level of (suspected) fraud.
The impression is that Member States prefer to report a more general description to avoid classification by the Commission as irregularity or (suspected) fraud.
Germany indicates no code at all. OLAF has tried to "translate" the sometimes very basic descriptions in the German communications into codes.
Nevertheless some Member States have improved their reporting of the type of irregularity and the modus operandi. Some other Member States still need to work on this.
Table AG7 gives an overview of Member States that reported the same type of irregularity in more than 40% of their reported irregularities.
Table AG 7: Member States "preference"
BUDGET YEAR 2006: MEMBER STATES' PREFERRED CODES
MSCodeDescriptionin % of total
AT599other irregularities concerning movements40%
BE741failure to fulfil commitments entered into42%
CY302inexact composition71%
CZ499other irregularities by the operator56%
EE699other irregularities concerning the right to aid100%
Sweden indicated in 90% of the cases "incorrect or incomplete request for aid". This implies that the irregularity should have been discovered before payment since the request for the subsidy was incorrect and/or
Table AG8: Irregularities detected before/after payment
incomplete. Sweden BUDGET YEAR 2006: IRREGULARITIES DETECTED BEFORE/AFTER PAYMENT
indicated in approximately 55% of the cases that the irregularity was detected before payment and that no amount was paid. The overall rate of irregularities MS casesdetected before paymentdetected after payment
casesin % of totalcasesin % of total
AT935862%3538%
BE57916%4884%
CY77100%0%
CZ9111%889%
DE4896213%42787%
detected before DK33515%2885%
EE100%10100%
payment is 14% which implies that 86% of the irregularities were detected after payment. Table AG8 gives an overview. Germany, Spain, France EL1110%111100%
ES6830%683100%
FI3326%3194%
FR5488115%46785%
HU3133%267%
IE945963%3537%
and Italy detected IT1402518%11582%
LT302790%310%
irregularities after payment in 87%, 100%, 85% and 82% of cases respectively. Together, these 5 Member States reported almost 75%
of LU30%3100%
LV10%1100%
MT
NL8756%8294%
PL674567%2233%
PT35910%358100%
SE804455%3645%
the amounts affected by SI10%1100%
irregularities and have therefore a high SK
UK31193%30297%
impact on the overall total324944114%280886%
percentage detected after payment.
Table AG 9: Irregularities and most frequently used Modus Operandi38
BUDGET YEAR 2006: MOST FREQUENTLY USED MODUS OPERANDI
CodeDescriptionalonesharedtotalin % of totalcumulative %
612failure to respect other regulations/contract conditions4618454514.88%14.88%
201missing or incomplete documents219332526.88%21.76%
812action not carried out in accordance with rules230202506.83%28.59%
412declaration of ficticious land147331804.92%33.51%
305inexact quantity111541654.51%38.01%
601failure to respect deadlines119381574.29%42.30%
405"irregular termination, sale or reduction"14041443.93%46.23%
207incorrect or incomplete request for aid126171433.90%50.14%
Table AG9 shows the most frequently used modus operandi (MO) for the irregularities reported in 2006.
As in 2005, the most frequent irregularity was "failure to respect other regulations/contract conditions", followed by "missing or incomplete documents".
Rather high is also the amount of irregularities in which the modus operandi is described as "declaration of fictitious land". These irregularities were reported by 5 Member States: Germany, Greece, Spain, Italy and Poland with respectively 121, 8, 3, 15 and 33 cases. Poland classified all cases as "suspected fraud", Italy and Greece classified their cases as "irregularity" as Germany and Spain did not classify any of the cases.
3.2.3. Amounts involved
The total number of cases reported in 2006 was 3,249. These 3,249 cases amount to approximately EUR 87 million. Chart AG1 shows the total number of cases per year and the total amount per year in the period 1971 2006.
The steady and significant increase in the number of cases seems to have come to an end. The total number of irregularities reported in 2006 has been more or less stable since 2002 (see the white "trend line" on chart AG1).
Chart AG 1: Irregularities communicated by Member States (1971-2006)
control system (IACS) and the move towards direct aid/payments decoupled from production.
In 2006, the countries which reported the highest number of cases were Spain, France, Germany, Portugal and the United Kingdom with 683, 548, 489, 359 and 311 cases respectively. In monetary terms, Spain reported the highest amounts affected by irregularities, almost EUR 26 million, followed by Italy which reported a total amount of approximately EUR 20 million. Together, Spain and Italy accounted for more than 50% of the total amount affected by irregularities in 2006. Up until now, no reports have been received from Malta and Slovakia.
Annex 12 gives an overview for each Member State.
3.2.4. Impact on the budget
Also of interest is the level of irregularities as a percentage of EAGGF-expenditure per Member State. The Netherlands has the highest percentage with 0.47%, followed by Spain, Portugal and Italy with 0.39%, 0.38% and 0.36% respectively. Annex 12 gives an overview of these percentages.
Some Member States report more irregularities than others. It is possible that some Member States are underreporting. Table AG10 shows the relationship in percentages, between the total amount allocated per Member State from the EAGGF budget, the total amount affected by irregularities per Member State and the total number of irregularities per Member State in 2006.
Table AG 10: total EAGGF-expenditure and irregularities in %
BUDGET YEAR 2006: IRREGULARITIES PER MS IN %
EAGGF - EXPENDITUREIRREGULARITIES
MSper MSper MS in per MS in
total in in % of total expenditure% of total amount% of total cases
MT1,709,7130.00%0.00%0.00%
CY48,279,9690.10%0.09%0.22%
Member States are ranked in order of their budget allocation, starting with the Member State receiving the least. Malta received the lowest amount (EUR 1.7 million) from the EAGGF budget whilst France received the highest amount (EUR 10.1 billion).
Together France, Spain and Germany receive almost 50% of the total EAGGF- budget, i.e. approximately EUR 23.3 billion. In 2006, France received approximately EUR 10.1 billion, Spain more than EUR 6.7 billion and Germany almost EUR 6.5 billion.
A relatively high number of cases and high total amount is reported by Spain and Portugal. Portugal received 1.96% of the total EAGGF-budget and is responsible for 4.31% of the total amounts affected by irregularities and 11.05% of the total number of reported irregularities. Spain received 13.52% of the total EAGGF-budget and reported 29.87% of the total amounts affected by irregularities and 21.02% of the total number of reported irregularities.
A relatively low amount affected by irregularities is reported by Germany and France. For France, the number of reported irregularities is also rather low.
Italy reported a relatively high total amount affected by irregularities but reported a relatively, low number of irregularities.
3.3. Specific Analysis
In 2006 Member States reported 3,249 cases of irregularities involving a total amount affected of approximately EUR 87 million. Member States must only inform the Commission of irregularities involving more than EUR 4,000.
Member States must inform the Commission of the measures/budget lines affected by irregularities. Unfortunately, some Member States do not comply fully with this rule. Some Member States do not report any codes, others are still reporting old codes or are using "easy" codes as such as "other".
3.3.1. Analysis of support measures
Table AG12 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,
· modus operandi.
Table AG 12: Irregularities per main category of support measure
BUDGET YEAR 2006: IRREGULARITIES PER MEASURE GROUP
AVERAGE IN % OF
GROUPDESCRIPTIONCASESAMOUNTS IN AMOUNTS IN TOTAL
40rural development1,26324,409,10819,32628%
21beef and veal40720,571,82750,54524%
15fruit and vegetables22013,831,35662,87016%
12olive oil1245,676,33345,7777%
10cereals2725,056,94318,5926%
16wine2844,468,27815,7335%
20milk and milk products1454,184,61228,8595%
The highest number of irregularities reported related to "rural development". Member States reported a total of 1,263 cases involving rural development measures (group 40). These cases alone amount to almost EUR 24.4 million, which is approximately 28% of the total amount affected by irregularities. The second most affected sector is "beef and veal" (group 21), where Member States reported 407 cases involving approximately EUR 20.6 million. This implies that the average amount per irregularity is relatively high for cases reported in this group. The last group of particular concern is "fruit and vegetables" (group 15). In this sector 220 cases were reported involving approximately EUR 13.8 million. These three groups together account for almost 60% of the total number of reported irregularities and almost 70% of the total amount affected by irregularities.
Rural development (group 40)
Member States reported a total of 1,263 cases affecting rural development measures (group 40). These cases alone amount to approximately EUR 24,4 million, which is approximately 28% of the total amount affected by irregularities. Table AG13 shows the measures that were mostly affected by irregularities, indicating the number of cases, the total amounts and average amount per irregularity. The largest number of irregularities related to "agri-environment new system" (code 4050 A).
Table AG 13: Rural development: measures affected by irregularities
BUDGET YEAR 2006: IRREGULARITIES IN RURAL DEVELOPMENT
codedescriptioncasesamounts in average
amounts in
4072 AForestry - Former system1495,399,90036,241
4060 AImproving the processing and marketing of agricultural products363,997,289111,036
4050 AAgrienvironment - New system4153,959,7659,542
4081 A aEssential services - economy and rural population341,515,88844,585
4080 A aImprovement of land291,441,41549,704
4051 AAgrienvironment - Former system1401,366,2559,759
4081 A bRenovation & development of villages - protection and conservation of rural heritage261,089,16841,891
4040 ALess favoured areas140842,1676,015
4010 ASetting-up of young farmers98618,6616,313
4080 A gDevelopment & improvement - infrastructure connected with development of agriculture10586,22458,622
4030 AEarly retirement - New system52523,55110,068
Striking are the high amount affected by irregularities for the measure "improving the processing and the marketing and agricultural products" (code 4060 A) and the high number of irregularities relating to the measure "agri-environment new system" (code 4050 A).
Member States reported 149 irregularities relating to forestry measures (code 4072 A). Table AG14 gives an overview of those irregularities. Spain and Portugal
Table AG14: Forestry
BUDGET YEAR 2006: RURAL DEVELOPMENT
reported the highest forestry - former system
number of cases with the highest amount
affected. The average MS casesin % of totalamounts in in % of totalaverage
amounts in
ES7248%4,282,52479%59,480
amount per case is fairly high in the cases reported by Spain, at about EUR 60,000. The modus operandi in 37% of the cases can be described as "not respecting deadlines". None of these cases were classified by Member States as "suspected fraud". PT6745%945,24718%14,108
EL43%118,2772%29,569
IE11%18,7080%18,708
UK21%17,4150%8,707
DE21%11,2920%5,646
DK11%6,4370%6,437
total149100%5,399,900100%36,241
art. 3 (1) Reg. 595/91 // art. 3 (1) a Reg. 1848/2006
Table AG15 gives an overview of the irregularities reported relating to the measure "improving the processing and marketing of agricultural products" (code 4060 A). Only five (5) Member States reported a limited number of irregularities relating to this measure. The financial impact, however, is high: almost EUR 4 million,
AG15: agricultural products
mainly due to the BUDGET YEAR 2006: RURAL DEVELOPMENT
irregularity reported by France which involved more than EUR 3 million. Member States classified 4 cases in this sector as "suspected fraud". In 3 of these cases, the beneficiary tried to obtain financial support by falsifying documents. 1 case concerned the manipulation of dates. improving the processing and marketing of agricultural products
MS casesin % of totalamounts in in % of totalaverage
amounts in
FR1953%3,008,24675%158,329
ES925%409,70710%45,523
UK411%397,15010%99,287
AT38%134,8883%44,963
IT13%47,2981%47,298
total36100%3,997,289100%111,036
art. 3 (1) Reg. 595/91 // art. 3 (1) a Reg. 1848/2006
Fruit and vegetables (group 15)
Member States reported a total of 220 cases affecting measures to support the fruit and vegetables sector (group 15). These cases alone add up to approximately EUR 13.8 million, which is approximately 16% of the total amount affected by irregularities. This is relatively high. Table AG17 shows the measures which were hit by irregularities, indicating the number of cases, the total amounts and the average amount per irregularity.
Table AG 17: Fruit and vegetables: measures affected by irregularities
BUDGET YEAR 2006: FRUIT AND VEGETABLES
codedescriptioncasesamounts in average
amounts in
1515 Scitrus fruits - compenstation to encourage processing954,321,63545,491
1502 Soperational funds for producer organisations604,196,59069,943
1509 Sfresh fruits and vegetables - other92,557,874284,208
1590 Vother121,095,72991,311
1507 Snuts8534,04366,755
1510 Rprocessed fruits and vegetables - export refund3277,31292,437
1508 Abananas - compensation aid11245,72622,339
1501 Sfree distribution in OR financial compensation for set-aside8167,20320,900
1504 Shazelnuts1154,296154,296
1511 Sprocessed tomato products - production aid3118,79439,598
1512 Sfruit-based products - production aid3113,95037,983
1500 Rexport refund226,50413,252
1513 A / Sdried grapes and figs27,4267,426
1519 Sprocessed fruits and vegetables - other15,1925,192
1516 Aprocessed raspberries - production aid14,9424,942
1505 Aarea payments14,1404,140
total22013,831,35662,870
art. 3 (1) Reg. 595/91 // art. 3 (1) a Reg. 1848/2006
France and Spain each reported one (1) case in which the total amount affected by the irregularity was more than EUR 1 million.
In recent years, Member States have consistently reported a relatively high number of irregularities relating to citrus fruits (code 1515 S). This trend was confirmed in 2006 when Member States again reported a relatively high number of irregularities involving a relatively high amount in this sector: 95 cases and a total amount affected of more than EUR 4.3 million. These cases were reported by three (3) Member States. Spain reported 83 cases with a total amount affected of EUR 3.5 million. Italy and Portugal together reported the other 12 cases with a total amount affected of EUR 0.8 million.
three (3) were reported by Italy involving a total amount of more than EUR 2 million. Italy classified all three (3) cases as "suspected fraud".
Beef and veal (group 21)
Member States reported a total of 407 cases relating to beef and veal measures (group 21). These add up to approximately EUR 20.6 million, approximately 24% of the total amount affected by irregularities. Table AG18 shows the measures which were worst hit by irregularities, indicating the number of cases, the total amounts and
Table AG18: Beef and veal
BUDGET YEAR 2006: IRREGULARITIES IN BEEF AND VEAL
codecasesamounts in average amounts in
export refunds1034,229,85441,067
storage14,4454,445
the average amount per premiums29816,261,87754,570
other575,65115,130
irregularity. The highest amounts affected by irregularities and the largest number of irregularities were reported for premiums. total40720,571,82750,545
art. 3 (1) Reg. 595/91 // art. 3 (1) a Reg. 1848/2006
The cases with a high financial impact were reported by Italy with five (5) "extensification premium cases"
39, which all had a financial impact of over EUR 1
million and a total amount affected of more than EUR 13 million.
Table AG19 gives an overview of irregularities relating to export refunds for beef and veal
40 and live animals41.
Table AG 19: Beef and veal: export refunds for beef/veal
BUDGET YEAR 2006: IRREGULARITIES IN BEEF AND VEAL
export refunds
export beef and vealexport live animalstotalaverage
MS casesamounts in casesamounts in casesamounts in amounts in
ES353,666,565353,666,565104,759
AT438,78732304,02036342,8079,522
DE348,63018,191456,82114,205
total number of irregularities reported in 2006. As mentioned earlier, this is one of the consequences of the reforms in the Common Agricultural Policy.
Member States reported 302 cases relating to export refunds and a total amount affected of more than EUR 9 million. In 15 cases, the amounts affected were more than EUR 100,000.
Table AG 20: Irregularities in export refunds per Member State
BUDGET YEAR 2006: EXPORT REFUNDS
MS casesamounts in
total 2006export refundsin % of totaltotal 2006export refundsin % of total
AT937985%1,040,985762,32273%
BE57814%1,258,191353,76228%
CY7686%77,58238,45750%
CZ9111%160,9157,6975%
DE4895812%7,319,843503,6687%
DK33515%1,186,901564,77648%
EE1099,319 0%
EL11111%1,305,91313,3751%
ES683416%25,937,4793,748,43914%
FI33454,657 0%
FR548193%11,689,252389,0293%
HU310,387
IE9433%857,39147,4306%
IT14086%20,003,064302,7682%
LT3027%308,66127,4799%
LU313,062 0%
LV113,176 0%
MT
NL871922%5,701,9751,801,96732%
PL672436%841,681153,30018%
PT35910%3,744,6286,2380%
SE8011%858,5606,2031%
SI10% 0%
SK
UK311268%3,941,146347,6609%
total3,2493029%86,824,7689,074,56910%
art. 3 (1) Reg. 595/91 // art. 3 (1) a Reg. 1848/2006
Austria and Spain reported the highest number of irregularities, 36 and 35 respectively. Spain reported by far the highest amount affected by irregularities, almost EUR 3.7 billion and in 2 cases the amounts affected were more than EUR 800,000. The most frequent modus operandi is "missing (supporting) documents".
Almost all the irregularities relating to the export of live animals (code 2101 R) were reported by Austria. Germany and the Netherlands reported 1 and 2 irregularities respectively.
The Netherlands contributed significantly to the high amount reported for measure concerning "skimmed milk powder". An amount of almost EUR 1.5 million relates to a single beneficiary who is under (penal) investigation.
Table AG 21: Export refund: irregularities per group
BUDGET YEAR 2006: EXPORT REFUNDS
CodeDescriptioncases amounts in average
amounts in
2100 Rbeef and veal \ CN 0201 (fresh), CN 0202 (frozen), CN 1602 (tinned)683,904,88857,425
2001 Rmilk and milk products \ skimmed milk powder201,813,82190,691
30xx Rnon-annex 1 products42751,65417,897
1003 Rcereals \ maize, rye, starch and other cereals5524,359104,872
2003 Rmilk and milk products \ condensed milk, powder milk with fat content > 1,5%8398,59649,825
2101 Rbeef and veal \ CN 0102 - live animals35324,9669,285
2300 Rpigmeat34288,1178,474
1510 Rfruit and vegetables \ processed 3277,31292,437
2002 Rmilk and milk products \ cheese26213,3548,206
9920 Rother export refunds - product not indicated32178,2535,570
1100 Rsugar \ sugar and isoglucose11152,31113,846
2000 Rmilk and milk products \ butter and butter oil7130,78018,683
xxxx Rprovisions246,18723,094
1500 Rfruit and vegetables226,50413,252
1600 Rwine323,3817,794
2311 Rpoultrymeat320,0866,695
1700 Rtobacco1
total3029,074,56930,048
art. 3 (1) Reg. 595/91 // art. 3 (1) a Reg. 1848/2006
A rather large number of irregularities (32) are classified as "other", which means that the Member States did not specify the measure involved. These irregularities were reported by Germany and the United Kingdom. In a large number of these cases, the Member States reported the goods involved as "unknown". This is remarkable, especially when they concern export declarations where the CN (Combined Nomenclature) code is clearly stated.
Classification of irregularities
Table AG22 gives an overview of the classification of irregularities by Member States and by OLAF. 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 and additional comments made by Member States. As mentioned earlier, Member States still need to improve their reporting, therefore the figures shown in the table should be treated with caution.
One Member State described that the irregularity was committed by using a false customs stamp which was fabricated by the beneficiary himself. The Member State classified this case as IRQ 2 which stands for "irregularity" and not as IRQ 3 which stands for "suspected fraud".
As said, table AG 22 should be treated with caution.
Table AG 22: Classification of irregularities
BUDGET YEAR 2006: CLASSIFICATION OF IRREGULARITIES
QUALIFICATION BY MEMBER STATESQUALIFICATION BY OLAF% IRQ3
MS totalIRQ0IRQ2IRQ3(blank)IRQ0IRQ2IRQ3by MSby OLAF
AT93488148721%2%
BE572342125050%9%
CY7166114%14%
CZ918180%0%
DE48948936012926%
DK3333330%0%
EE1010100%0%
EL1111019194178%15%
ES683683647365%
FI33312330%0%
FR548354233514311%6%
HU312120%0%
IE941931930%0%
IT14011112811003920%28%
LT30302550%17%
LU33120%67%
LV1110%0%
MT
Given that this was a first attempt to estimate the level of fraud in the agricultural sector, the figures should be interpreted cautiously. Nevertheless, the results of the analysis are in line with the results of those Member States which classify the irregularities.
Chart AG 2: Irregularities and "suspected fraud"
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
2000200120022003200420052006
casesamounts
One early conclusion is that, as a percentage of the total number of reported irregularities, "suspected fraud" varied between approximately 10% and 13% in the period 2000 2006. The 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 14% and 45% during the period 2000 2006.
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.
It should be reiterated that some Member States have started to report a rather large number of cases (more than 40%) under the broad category of irregularity which makes it more difficult to estimate the level of (suspected) fraud.
Belgium, Greece, Italy, Lithuania and Poland have a low recovery rate. The rather low recovery rate of Italy, e.g. 6%, has a high impact on the average recovery rate (EU-25). This is even more clear when the irrecoverable cases are considered as
recovered: the recovery rate of Italy increases to 35%, the same as the EU-25- average.
Table AG23: Recovery rate (period 2000 2006)
BUDGET YEAR 2006: RECOVERY RATES PERIOD 2000 - 2006
2000200120022003200420052006average % average %
2000 - 20062000 - 2006
including IRR **)
AT41%77%19%14%61%50%35%55%58%
BE4% / 5% *)75%35%40%64%77%33%14%14%
CY
CZ32%32%32%
DE40% / 42% *)38%25%62%26%48%39%38%42%
DK93%98%95%49%97%99%91%85%96%
EE43%43%43%
EL2%24%3%6%23%14%11%6%6%
ES35%28%41%13%27%15%13%22%34%
FI96%89%91%95%59%46%70%83%83%
FR41%23%30%24%32%18%13%26%30%
HU100%100%100%100%
IE78%82%93%76%71%85%26%81%83%
IT0%9%9%18%34%64%57%6%35%
LT0%0%0%0%
LU100%98%100%46%32%92%92%
LV100%100%100%100%
MT
NL38% / 92% *)13%66%84%83%81%22%44% / 57% *)58%
PL5%16%9%9%
PT27%54% / 56% *)63%33% / 75% *)36%18%19%30% / 34% *)34%
SE100%66%92%95%58%63%58%68%76%
SI0%0%
SK
UK26%38%70%95%85%61%60%47%59%
average8% / 9% *)28%25%21%37%33%27%19%35%
*) 2nd percentage concerns recovery including clearance of accounts decisions (AC)
**) percentage includes AC (clearance of accounts) and IRR (= irrecoverable. Member States have established that recovery will not be possible)
art. 3 (1) Reg. 595/91 // art. 3 (1) m, n Reg. 1848/2006
The average recovery rate over the period 1971 2006 is 29%. This is the part actually recovered by the Member States from the beneficiaries. For those cases that have been closed via a clearance of accounts procedure, one should add to this figure the amounts charged to the Member States for negligence in pursuing the recovery. This would bring the total figure to 44%. If one only looks to the period covered by the Task Force Recovery (period 1971 1998) the average recovery rate is 78%. The latter is including amounts charged to Member States and/or EAGGF-budget.
of the Member States which do report the penalties imposed, only do so in a limited number of cases.
Table AG24 gives an overview of penalties and interest over the period 2000 2006.
Table AG 24: Penalties and interest: period 2000 - 2006
BUDGET YEAR 2006: INTEREST AND PENALTIES PERIOD 2000 - 2006
penalties
MS casesamounts in interest in amounts in % of irregularityMS-partEU-part
AT5906,313,158131,0331,878,65230%16,263449,573
BE36661,769,527351,3978,524,06114%
CY1096,821 0%
CZ9160,915 0%
DE4,50482,120,880208,245690,9171%
DK3837,814,149386,6571,106,82314%
EE1099,31934 0%
EL31724,560,314211,7189,8860%
ES4,732278,594,17016,612,6426,531,1482%
FI1682,540,30166,75645,3112%
FR3,30480,675,643190,5528,883,64211%103,897103,897
HU629,410286 0%
IE6748,440,078170,819448,9695%
IT956461,436,259144,612,89482,3480%
LT58698,048 13,7392%
LU13146,03716,617 0%
LV113,176153 0%
MT
NL86226,087,8493,291,6114,349,52117%3,478
PL1311,614,0302,0017,8400%
PT1,40730,721,813227 0%
SE4525,678,89250,265419,3387%55382,704
SI10232,894 0%
SK
UK1,99346,437,2141,679,6722,599,6396%
total20,9561,126,280,897167,983,57935,591,8343%124,191636,174
art. 3 (1) Reg. 595/91 // art. 3 (1) Reg. 1848/2006
Reporting discipline:
· the reporting discipline of Member States improved in 2006, but further
improvements are still necessary;
· new Member States have a better reporting record than some of the former EU-15;
· the level of compliance of a Member State seems to decrease as the total amount
of support measures increases;
· the average time between committing an irregularity and reporting the irregularity
to the Commission is 3,2 years;
· the average time between the discovery and the reporting of an irregularity is
almost 1 year;
· the system of electronic reporting of irregularities (AFIS/ECR-module Reg.
595/91) has led to an improvement in data quality and in the timeliness of reporting;
· Germany and Spain are not using AFIS/ECR-module Reg. 595/91 to forward
communications;
· Germany is the only Member State that is not reporting any nominal data42;
· Germany completely failed to forward any communication on time.
General trends:
· the total number of irregularities reported has been stable since 2002;
· the total amount affected by irregularities has stabilized at approximately EUR
Specific analysis:
· the three main categories most affected by irregularities are:
-
-Rural development : 1,263 cases involving EUR 24.4 million
-
-Beef and veal : 407 cases involving EUR 20.6 million
-
-Fruit and vegetables : 220 cases involving EUR 13.8 million;
Irregularity vs suspected fraud:
· "Suspected fraud" cases, as a percentage of the total number of irregularities
reported, vary between 3% (classification by MS) and 10% (classification by OLAF).
Penalties and recovery:
· recovery of unduly paid amounts is more successful when recovery commences
directly following the detection of the irregularity;
· average recovery rate over the period 2000 2006 is 19%;
· average recovery rate over the period 1971 2006 is 29%;
· average recovery rate over the "Task Force Recovery period" 1971 1998 is 78%
(including amounts charged to Member States and EAGGF-budget);
· the total amount of penalties is approximately 3% of the total amount affected by
-
4.STRUCTURAL MEASURES (ANNEXES 14-17)
In 2006, Member States reported 2,988 irregularities under Regulation (EC) No 1681/94 which covers the four Structural Funds
43 and 228 under Regulation (EC) No
1831/94 (on the Cohesion Fund), for a total of 3,216 irregularities. The total amount affected by irregularities in 2006 was about EUR 703 million, EUR 517 million of which was from the Structural Funds and EUR 186 million from the Cohesion Fund. Irregularities reported in this sector were equivalent to 1.83% of the budget allocated to structural measures in 2006.
Since the information system of irregularities was established, Member States have reported 22,371 irregularities, of which 21,574 related to the Structural Funds and 797 to the Cohesion Fund.
4.1. Reporting Discipline
In 2006, the Commission received 4,074 communications under Regulations (EC) Nos 1681/94
44 and 1831/9445, of which 630 were updates of cases that had been
previously reported (under Article 5 of the abovementioned regulations).
Electronic reporting
The number of Member States using the electronic reporting system is steadily increasing. In 2006, 50% of all irregularities were reported electronically through the AFIS/ECR system as showed in chart SF1.
Chart SF 1: Reporting of irregularities used formats
The increased use of the AFIS/ECR modules 1681 and 1831 is leading 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 consistence of the information submitted to the Commission.
There are still 9 countries that do not use the AFIS/ECR modules 1681 and 1831: Estonia, France, Germany, Ireland (which has reported no irregularity at all in 2006), Luxembourg, Latvia, Slovenia Slovakia and Spain. Germany sends an electronic file via the AFIS-mail, which still needs some processing. Table SF1 indicates the reporting formats used by Member States and the relative number of irregularities forwarded to the Commission.
Table SF 1: Reporting formats used by the Member States
MEMBER STATES electronic electronic file paper TOTAL
AT 57 2 59
BE 25 6 31
CZ 46 46
DE 321 321
DK 3 16 19
EE 11 11
EL 173 173
ES 428 428
FI 47 1 48
FR 98 98
HU 97 97
IT 380 364 744
LT 26 26
LU 3 3
LV 5 5
MT 2 2
NL 182 182
The increased use of the electronic reporting system should also support further improvements in the future.
Chart SF 2: Percentage of irregularities reported after the deadlines
100%
80%
s
r i t i e
l a
g u60%
d i r r e
p or t e
40%
f
r e
o
%
20%
0%
DEESM THUSIDKSEEU2 5A TNLCZB EITFIEEELLTUKFRLULVPL
Member States
LateOn tim e
Year of detection vs year of reporting
Another indicator to measure `time compliance' is the level of reporting in 2006 of cases detected in 2005 and 2006. In the Structural Measures sector, in which decentralisation can be extremely accentuated, the communication flow may be more complicated than in other sectors. For this reason only irregularities detected before 1
st January 2005, or for which no date of detection has been communicated, are
considered as indicating non compliance.
Chart SF 3: Percentage of irregularities reported within 2 years after being established
As shown on chart SF3, on average, about 85% of all irregularities reported in 2006 were established after the indicated date. The result is slightly better than in 2005 (84%) and Member States are encouraged to keep on this path.
Reporting on time is indispensable to make it possible for the Commission to use the information contained in the communications correctly. Reporting quickly the detected irregularities also shows that the Member State is taking all appropriate measures in order to recover the unduly paid amounts.
Personal data
Chart SF4 indicates another aspect of the reporting discipline. It shows the percentage of the communications for which personal data have been reported or not.
Chart SF 4: Percentage of communications containing nominal data
100%
s80%
l ar i t i e
g u60%
d i r r e
40%
p or t e
f
r e
o
%20%
0%
DECZPLEU25SEFINLATBEDKEEESFRGBGRHUITLTLULVMTPTSISK
Mem ber States
high value and importance in order to establish the impact of "suspected frauds" on the total reported irregularities (for more details, see infra paragraph 4.3.2). Table SF5 provides an indication of the Member States' compliance of this aspect.
Table SF 2: Compliance per Member State in relation to the qualification of irregularities
MEMBER N° of qualified N° of not qualified
STATES irregularities irregularities TOTAL
AT 57 2 59
BE 25 6 31
CZ 46 46
DE 2 319 321
DK 3 16 19
EE 6 5 11
EL 173 173
ES 428 428
FI 47 1 48
FR 98 98
HU 95 2 97
IT 378 366 744
LT 26 26
LU 3 3
LV 3 2 5
MT 2 2
NL 181 1 182
PL 100 57 157
PT 458 458
SE 24 47 71
SI 4 3 7
SK 7 7
UK 9 214 223
4.2. General Trends
Overall trend
In 2006 the number of irregularities reported decreased by around 10% as compared to the year before. However, an increase in the irregular amounts of about 8% was observed, the irregularities reaching EUR 703 million (including the Cohesion Fund). 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 SF5, since 2002 the number of irregularities has fluctuated between 2,500 and 3,600.
In 2006, the number of irregularities reported decreased significantly in comparison to the situation in 2005. That was caused mostly by the change in the legislation. The Regulations Nos 2035/2005 and 2168/2005 amending, respectively, Regulations Nos 1681/94 and 1831/94 raised the reporting threshold from EUR 4,000 to EUR 10,000.
Chart SF 5: 1998-2006 trend concerning number of reported irregularities and irregular amounts
5.000800.000
4.500
700.000
4.000
3.500600.000
3.000500.000
2.500400.000
2.000
300.000
1.500
200.000
1.000
500100.000
199819992000200120022003200420052006
The difficulty in interpreting chart SF5 consists in the fact that projects financed through the Structural Actions budget are implemented over several years and the number of irregularities and related financial impact is only calculated on the reporting year. It can also happen that Member States still report irregularities referred to the Programming Period 1994-1999 and these are included in the chart too (for an analysis per programming period, see infra paragraph 4.2.5)
Furthermore, only some 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 (for more details see infra paragraph 4.3.3).
Moreover, the vast 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.
Trend related to Member States
Like in previous years, the irregularities are not distributed equally among Member States.
Taking into consideration how the irregularities are split among Member States, like in previous years the biggest countries and those with the highest overall funding from the Structural Actions report the most irregularities. In 2006, the highest number of irregularities was reported by Italy (744) Portugal (458), Spain (428) and Germany (321). As for Germany, a significant decrease was observed (-73%) as in 2005 this country reported almost 4 times more irregularities (1,208). The numbers increased notably both for Italy (563 in 2005 and 751 in 2006; +32%) and Portugal (220 in 2005 and 458 in 2006; +108%).
In the analysis of the particular funds, the irregularities are split differently between the Member States than in the total number of cases. For example, in the European Social Fund (ESF) irregularities, the Netherlands come second after Portugal. The bulk of the irregularities for the Netherlands originate from this fund
70% of the irregularities related to this Fund, it is positive that also the other Member States benefiting from this fund have started reporting a more "balanced" number of irregularities. In particular, Spain reported 82 irregularities, with an increase of more than 400% in relation to last year (82 irregularities in 2006 and 16 in 2005).
In 2006, only Ireland and Cyprus reported no irregularities. It should be stressed that too few irregularities reported by a given Member State could be a cause for concern.
4.2.1. Detection methods
Table SF3 shows the most frequent detection methods and the related detected amounts.
Table SF 3: detection methods
Code Description Frequency Detected amounts Average detected
(in ) amounts (in )
206 Control of documents 970206,157,012212,533
999 Other facts 514116,936,865227,504
On the spot control of achievement of project or action
230 30559,023,565193,520
107 Judicial enquiry 279114,198,350409,313
209 Control on the premises of the company 26144,726,207171,365
320 Ex post control 19236,850,280191,929
National administrative or financial
101 control 17013,710,18280,648
104 National fiscal control 11622,773,835196,326
Two aspects need to be underlined. In the first place the excessive use of a generic description of the detection method used: "other facts". Secondly, the extremely high average amounts detected through "Judicial enquiries.
4.2.2. Types of irregularity
Differences remain among Member States as to the types of irregularities reported and, to a certain extent, these are consistent with last year. The majority of cases involve irregularities of an "administrative" nature that are normally detected in the course of the routine documentary checks which are conducted before any payment of european money is made. To demonstrate this, among the most frequent types of irregularity reported by Member States are the "not eligible expenditure" and "missing or incomplete supporting documents".
Table SF 4: Most frequent types of irregularities reported by Member States
Code Description Frequency Amounts Indicative
involved (in ) average
amounts (in )
A B C D50 E = D / C
325 Not eligible expenditure 760174,250,779 229,277
999 Other irregularities 30299,512,341 329,511
Missing or incomplete supporting
210 documents 20915,608,261 74,681
Infringement of rules concerned with public procurement
614 196103,841,401 529,803
Failure to respect other
612 regulation/contract condition 18926,496,392 140,193
213 False or falsified supporting documents 18575,308,200 407,071
Action not carried out in accordance with rules
812 1289,855,556 76,997
601 Failure to respect deadlines 11522,921,005 199,313
It should be noted that due to the reporting method a single case communicated to OLAF may contain more than one type of irregularity. Figures in table S13 are based on how many times the type of irregularity has been communicated alone and how many times it has been reported together with other types of irregularity. The amount involved sums up all the values related to that specified type
51.
The "real" total amounts reported are those in annex 14 and 15.
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.
4.2.3. Amounts involved
As far as amounts per country are concerned, they are more or less in line with the number of the reported cases, with Italy, Germany, Spain and Portugal reporting the highest financial amounts. Greece however comes in the second place with EUR 131 million of irregular amounts and this is due mainly to the irregularities in the Cohesion Fund
However, the number of reported irregularities and related amounts is linked, to a certain extent, to the budget that is allocated to each Member State, as showed in chart SF6. This trend is in general confirmed, with two important exceptions.
On one extreme, there is an absolute domination of Italy in both the numbers and the amounts indicated. On the other, in relation to the budget allocated, the number of irregularities and related amounts reported by France appear far too low.
Those 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.
However, strong differences in reporting further stress the need to undertake more efforts in view of an improved uniform application of the reporting obligation.
Chart SF 6: Number of cases and amounts affected by irregularities per Member State (in the order of increasing SF budget)
8 0 02 50 0 0 0 0 00
70 0
2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
s
6 0 0 ( i n
t s
50 0
1500 0 0 0 0 0o un
gu l ar i t i e
m
4 0 0
d i r r ei al
a )
3 0 010 0 0 00 0 0 0a nc
po r t e
f
r e
2 0 0l ar
f i n
50 0 0 0 0 0 0g u
N °
o
10 0I r r
Chart SF 7: Impact of irregularities on SF budget
2,50%
2,00%)
e t
( %
1,50%
u dg
n b
1,00%
p ac t
o
0,50%I m
0,00%
199819992000200120022003200420052006
Years
4.2.5. Trends related to the programming period 2000-2006
In 2006, about 91% of the reported irregularities were referred to the programming period 2000-2006, as showed in chart SF8.
This is to be expected as the attention of the controls is naturally focussed on running projects rather then closed operations.
Chart SF 8: Distribution of reported irregularities per programming period
Chart SF9 shows the trend of reported irregularities (both in terms of numbers and financial amounts involved) referred to the 2000-2006 round alone, as from the year 2000.
Irregularities related to the current 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 over several years.
Chart SF 9: 1998-2006 trend concerning number of reported irregularities and irregular amounts Programming Period 2000-2006
Chart SF10 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.
Chart SF11 shows how the irregularities reported in 2006 and related to the programming period 2000-2006 were distributed among the different objectives
53.
Chart SF 11: distribution of irregularities related to PP2000-2006 according to objective 2006
5%6%
17%
72%
Community InitiativesObJ. 1Obj. 2Obj. 3
The distribution of the irregularities is very much in line with the allocation of the financial resources among the different objectives.
4.3. Specific analysis
4.3.1. Irregularities affecting the different funds
Table SF5 shows the repartition of the irregular amounts reported for 2006 between the different Funds (including the Cohesion Fund).
The numbers have decreased in comparison to last year due to the already mentioned change in the legislation. In 2005 the Member States communicated to OLAF 3,570 irregularities; in 2006 it was 3,216 (- 9.9%).
As in previous years, most irregularities were communicated for the ERDF and ESF. About 75% of the irregularities were reported for those two funds alone. There has been also an important increase in the number of irregularities in the EAGGF- Guidance (+38% as compared to 2005). The share of the irregularities for the Cohesion Fund and the FIFG remained quite stable.
This situation is showed in details in chart SF12 and table SF6 below.
Chart SF 12 Cases of irregularities per Structural Fund (CF included)
'Number of cases including CF'
FIFGCohesion Fund
3%7%
EAGGF - Guid.ERDFERDF
17%38%
ESF
EAGGF - Guid.
FIFG
Cohesion Fund
The difference in the share of different funds in the total number of cases and total amounts is due to the fact that the average costs of projects, financed by the different Funds, vary significantly. The projects co-financed by the Cohesion Fund, for instance, can be extremely costly, thus very high values of irregularities.
Chart SF13 represents graphically the described situation.
Chart SF 13: Amounts affected per Structural Funds (CF included)
-
'Amounts including CF'
Cohesion Fund
27%
ERDF
FIFGERDFESF
1%50%EAGGF - Guid.
EAGGF - Guid.FIFG
8%Cohesion Fund
ESF
14%
As compared to 2005, even if the ERDF accounts for as much as 50% of the amounts, its share has decreased by 11% in comparison to 2005. Two funds experienced an increase of the irregular amounts in 2006 in relation to the previous year. In the EAGGF-Guidance a very important growth of 257% was observed. The Cohesion Fund showed a 39% increase in the irregular amounts. Table SF6 provides details concerning all the funds.
of the total). As already mentioned, this is due, however, to the high value of projects carried out in its framework.
If only the four Structural Funds are taken in consideration, the distribution of the reported irregularities and related involved financial amounts is presented in the following charts SF14 and SF15.
Chart SF 14: Number of irregularities per Structural Fund (CF excluded)
'Number of cases excluding CF'
FIFG
EAGGF - Guid.3%
18%
ERDF
41%ERDF
ESF
EAGGF - Guid.
FIFG
ESF
38%
Chart SF 15: Amounts affected per Structural Funds (CF excluded)
'Amounts excluding CF'
EAGGF - Guid.FIFG
administrative state of an irregularity and the additional information given in text fields.
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 fraud only after a sentence is issued by a competent court.
As already indicated under paragraph 4.1, around 51% of the irregularities (1,639) have been qualified by the Member States. It is an encouraging progress in relation to previous years, but indicates also that there is still need for better compliance.
However, a parallel between OLAF's analysis and the Member States' qualification has now more grounds than in the past.
Almost 15% of the 51% of the irregularities for which qualification has been provided by Member States (see above), were qualified as "suspected fraud".
This result is fully in line with last years' estimations from OLAF.
The sample is still not fully representative as some 10 Member States have still not provided any qualification at all, but it still represents a great improvement in relation to last years.
Furthermore, another limitation of the sample is represented by the fact that the greatest majority of "suspected frauds" has been detected and reported by the Italian authorities. This is a very important element, because, in this respect, the activity of Guardia di finanza, the Italian economic and financial police, is particularly relevant.
Of the 744 communications reported from Italy, in fact, 292 indicate Guardia di finanza as the detecting authority. Almost 90% of them are qualified, or can be, as "suspected fraud". If these are not taken in consideration, the number of irregularities reported by Italy would be 452 and the related irregular financial amounts would be more than 50% lower.
This consistency is particularly evident on the total of the reported irregularities, while on the different Funds significant differences are present.
However, also following OLAF's analysis, the main patterns are confirmed. That is to say that FIFG remains the fund with the highest relative impact and ESF is, contrary to the year 2005, the fund with the lowest.
Table SF8 presents the same comparison between the qualification provided by Member States and OLAF's analysis in relation to the amounts reported.
Table SF 8: Percentage of reported amounts qualified as "suspected fraud" and estimation of "suspected fraud" amounts per fund
DATA SET ERDF EAGGF-
Guidance FIFG ESF TOTAL
Member State qualification (50.9% of the full dataset)
34.6% 29.2% 40.3% 2.9% 25.1%
OLAF qualification (on the full dataset)
34.6% 19.6% 33.6% 6.1% 24.3%
In this case, the results are even closer than in table SF7 and the only unconfirmed pattern is related to the predominance of ERDF over FIFG.
However, it is still recommended to take a lot of caution in assessing the meaning of these figures. A 100% qualification from the Member States would remove a great deal of this caution, but the similar results are, indeed encouraging.
Chart SF16 presents the trend of the percentage of suspected frauds on the total reported irregularities in the last seven years calculated according to OLAF's estimations.
A striking aspect is the relatively stable percentage of irregularities that could be estimated as suspected fraud and that is around 15% of the total reported (darker line on the chart).
Chart SF 16: Level of "suspected frauds" on total reported irregularities from 2000
to 2006
By examining closely only the cases estimated to be considered as suspected fraud, the amounts still to be recovered related to them have an impact on the EU budget of
0.18%.
4.3.3. Irregularities detected before payment
Therefore, 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' preventive action.
Table SF 9: irregularities detected before payments per Member States - 2006
% of % of
Irregularities detected Reported Amounts related
detected
MS Reported
irregularities detected before before irregular to irregularities
MS
payment payment on amounts detected before before
total payment payment
on total
A B C = B / A (in
%) D E F = D / E
(in %)
AT 59 7 11.9% 7,851,597 721,630 9.2% AT
BE 31 4 12.9% 3,680,989 97,635 2.7% BE
CZ 46 6 13.0% 3,001,399 2,815,537 93.8% CZ
DE 321 8 2.5% 27,203,888 285,975 1.1% DE
DK 19 8 42.1% 800,234 204,598 25.6% DK
EE 11 2 18.2% 1,341,061 162,763 12.1% EE
EL 173 5 2.9% 131,154,666 1,173,262 0.9% EL
ES 428 2 0.5% 130,167,747 507,717 0.4% ES
FI 48 10 20.8% 2,993,100 195,599 6.5% FI
FR 98 1 1.0% 4,399,692 24,381 0.6% FR
HU 97 77 79.4% 6,293,322 5,631,554 89.5% HU
IT 744 88 11.8% 228,218,564 41,150,829 18.0% IT
LT 26 21 80.8% 1,377,410 1,003,003 72.8% LT
LU 3 0.0% 131,931 0.0% LU
LV 5 0.0% 61,795 0.0% LV
MT 2 0.0% 384,750 0.0% MT
NL 182 148 81.3% 15,325,821 11,894,038 77.6% NL
PL 157 81 51.6% 12,503,254 8,264,833 66.1% PL
PT 458 5 1.1% 60,920,581 178,255 0.3% PT
SE 71 45 63.4% 2,546,697 1,769,095 69.5% SE
SI 7 1 14.3% 2,598,183 7,033 0.3% SI
SK 7 0.0% 555,213 0.0% SK
UK 223 14 6.3% 59,790,464 1,086,975 1.8% UK
EU25 3,216 533 16.6% 703,302,358 77,174,710 11.0% EU25
to be recovered. The proportion of the balance still to be recovered is in line with that of 2005 (about 31% of the amounts affected by irregularities).
4.5. Conclusions
Introduction
· Member States reported 3,216 irregularities in 2006;
· The total financial amount affected in 2006 was about EUR 703 million.
Reporting discipline
· The number of irregularities reported through the Electronic modules AFIS/ECR
have been increasing and now represent over 50% of the total;
· Nine Member States still do not use the electronic modules AFIS/ECR: Estonia,
France, Germany, Ireland (which has reported no irregularity at all in 2006), Luxembourg, Latvia, Slovenia Slovakia and Spain;
· Germany sends an electronic file via the AFIS-mail, which still needs some
processing;
· Member States need to pay more attention to submit the irregularities within
deadlines established by regulations;
· The time gap between detection and reporting is very satisfactory;
· Germany is the only country that does not communicate personal data54;
· The qualification of the irregularity (indicating whether or not it is a case of
"suspected' fraud) is an element of the reporting that needs to be strengthened. In 2006, the qualification was given in 50.9% of the irregularities;
· The most frequent method for detecting irregularities is the control of documents.
Judicial enquiries result in the highest average detected amounts;
· Not eligible expenditure is the most frequently reported type of irregularity. The
other typologies reported are in line with previous years;
· Italy, Portugal, Spain, Germany and the United Kingdom are the Member States
that reported the highest number of irregularities in 2006;
· Italy, Greece, Spain, United Kingdom and Portugal are the countries that reported
the highest amounts;
· Italy is the country that has reported the highest number of irregularities and
related amounts. This does not necessarily mean that in Italy more frauds and irregularities occur than in the other countries. The reason could be a higher number of controls;
· The greatest majority of irregularities related to the programming period 2000-
2006 relate to Objective 1 regions.
Specific analysis
· Amounts increased significantly for EAGGF-Guidance;
· The Cohesion Funds amounts influence greatly the analysis;
· Amounts increased for the ESF in spite of decrease in the number of cases;
· ERDF remains the fund to which the highest number of irregularities and the
highest amounts are related. This is expected considering that it is the Fund with the largest resources available. However, its share has decreased in relation to last year;
-
5.PRE-ACCESSION FUNDS (ANNEXES 18-21)
In 2006 Member States and Acceding Countries sent to the Commission/OLAF 1,207 reports of which 384 first communications and 823 updates concerning all pre- accession funds. The total amount affected by irregularities reported in 2006 was EUR 12.3 million, of which from PHARE EUR 6.9 million (198 irregularity reports), SAPARD EUR 4.3 million (160) and ISPA EUR 1.2 (26).
5.1. Reporting discipline
According to Financing Memoranda signed with beneficiary countries, detected irregularities have to be reported to the European Commission within two months after the end of each quarter. Electronic system of reporting irregularities detected in the pre-accession funds has not yet been operational and irregularity reports have been sent in paper format to both OLAF and respective line DGs. In OLAF they are keyed into a database which allows their further analysis.
Chart PA 1: Share of inconsistent reports in 2006
60,00%
53,6%
r t s50,00%
p o
n t
r e40,00%
t e
i s32,0%
30,00%
c on s
20,0% 20,0%
f
i n
o20,00%
a r e10,5% 11,9%13,2% 14,4%
S h10,00%
5,6%
3,0% 3,3%
0,0% 0,0% 0,0%
The quality of the reports has been improving but at a very slow pace. Chart PA1 presents the share of inconsistent reports in all reports sent to OLAF in 2006. Inconsistencies between different sections of the same irregularity report are quite numerous on average they constituted 13.3%. The biggest problem is clearly with Hungarian reports 53.6% contain errors. In absolute numbers Romania has the highest number of reports presenting inconsistencies (78), followed by Bulgaria (17) and Slovakia (16). The irregularity management team try to clarify all the inconsistencies in reports but the exercise is extremely time consuming. Many of the inconsistencies could be eliminated if the reports were verified by national authorities before submission.
Year 2006 was the first year when higher threshold introduced by amendments in the Regulation No 1681/1994 applied in the PHARE reporting obligation. The threshold was increased to EUR 10,000. Despite this fact, many countries continued to report irregularities below that threshold. In the PHARE fund, 93 reports had irregular amount below the threshold. As in the previous years in SAPARD the threshold was EUR 4,000 and 64 reports involved irregular amounts below that. Table PA1 shows the number of irregularities reported below the threshold in 2006 per Country.
Table PA 1: Irregularity reported in 2006 below the threshold
Fund All funds
No Reports Eligible amount Irregular amount Amount to be recovered
Bulgaria 10 1,353,814 17,314 17,225
Cyprus
Czech Republic
Estonia 1 2,828 2,828 2,828
Hungary 9 1,162,002 26,593 9,205
Latvia 10 415,790 36,699 12,779
Lithuania 2 314,384 3,480
the scale are Cyprus, Czech Republic, Malta, Slovenia, Turkey with compliance level
of 0%.
According to article 3(1)(e) of Regulation No 1681/94 reporting authorities have to qualify suspected fraud cases. As presented on chart PA2, six States out of thirteen did not fulfil that requirement, and only one, Estonia, fully complied.
Chart PA 2: Compliance level in 2006 qualification of irregularity
100%94%100%
86%
80%
v el
60%57%63%68%
49% 50%
n ce l e
l i e40%
C om p
20%
0%0%0%0%0%0%
0%
CY
CZ
MTSI
SKTRPLLTBGHU
age
ROLVEE
Aver
M e mbe r State s - Acce ding Countrie s
Table PA2 presents the time span that elapses for each country between the occurrence of irregularity and its reporting to the Commission.
Table PA 2: Time delay all first communications
Irregularity - Discovery Discovery-Reporting
Average time gap Average time gap
Missing Error (in months) Missing Error (in months)
BG 26 1 6.05 14 6.93
5.2. General Trends
In 2006 the number of cases reported (first communications) further increased by 14.2% in comparison to the previous year. The highest growth in reported irregularities is in PHARE (+31.8%). In ISPA communications remained at rather low level of 26 communications. The disappearance of communications coming from the 10 new Members States (ISPA was transformed into Cohesion Fund and reports are submitted under Regulation No 1831/94) was replaced by increased communication from Romanian of ISPA cases. In SAPARD the number of communications in 2006 was almost at the same level as in 2005. Overall the growth rate of irregularity reports have been steadily decreasing, which reflects the slow phasing out of the pre-accession assistance. This effect is compensated by increased closure controls.
The decline of eligible amount observed in 2004 and 2005 has been reversed. In 2006 the eligible amount increased by 122% in comparison to 2005. This was caused mostly by a more than 3-fold increase in eligible expenditure in ISPA. The decrease in the other two funds could not counterbalance the ISPA increase. In PHARE eligible expenditure declined by 9.0% and in SAPARD dropped by 19.5%.
Chart PA 3: Eligible amount by fund
700
600ISPA
SAPARD
500
PHARE
f
400
n s o
i l l i o300
M
200
definitions caused changes to the trend, especially if those changes happens in a country with contributes a lot to the dataset.
The second effect was one irregularity reported by Bulgarian authorities in 2005 which was declared completely irregular. The impact of this irregularity over eligible expenditure was rather limited but EUR 5 million irregular amount influenced the overall irregular amount.
Chart PA 4: Irregular amount by fund
20
18
16
14
f
12
ISPA
n s o
10SAPARD
8PHARE
M i l l i o
6
4
2
20022003200420052006
Ye a r
5.2.1. Method of detection
When analysing the method of detection it has to be kept in mind that only a very few cases have been assigned a detection method by reporting authority. In all other cases the codes were attributed based on description, (sometimes very vague) provided in the report.
Table PA 3: Method of detection by number of reported irregularities
in the new Member States and increased controls in connections to both final payments and to closure controls.
The table PA4 presents the method of detection classified by irregular amount. The main difference is the overall increase in share of the national administrative and financial controls which makes up 44.3%. This shows the importance of national implementation and controls mechanisms in the process of detection.
Table PA 4: Method of detection by irregular amount
All years 2006
Share in % Cumulative
Method of detection share Share in % Cumulative share
National administrative or
financial control 44.32% 44.32% 16.15% 16.15%
Control of documents 26.78% 71.10% 45.07% 61.22%
On the spot control of
achievement of project 13.19% 84.29% 11.54% 72.76%
Ex post control 6.08% 90.37% 1.81% 74.57%
National fiscal control 2.26% 92.64% 7.39% 81.96%
Other controls 1.36% 94.00% 2.25% 84.21%
5.2.2. Types of irregularity
The most frequently reported type of irregularity by number of received communications in 2006 was "non-eligible expenditure": 17% of irregularities had this modus operandi. It was the most common type in all three pre-accession funds, as in ISPA it represented 30.8%, 23.8%in SAPARD and 9.8% in PHARE.
Table PA 5: Type of irregularity by number of reported irregularities
All years 2006
Share in % Cumulative Cumulative
share Share in %
share
Non-eligible expenditure 16.51% 16.51% 17.02% 17.02%
"falsified supporting documents" (7.5%). The latter had a similar share also in SAPARD (8.13%).
Comparing the figures from 2006 with the data for all years similar patterns can be observed. The most common type of irregularity remains "non-eligible expenditure" both globally and in all three pre-accession funds separately. It had the highest share in ISPA fund - 23.2%. "Falsified supporting document" type of irregularity was the second most common in SAPARD (9.8%) and in PHARE was next to other potentially fraudulent modus operandi, "falsified accounts" (5.4%), and together they represented 10.5% of all irregularities.
If the comparison is made by affected irregular amount, the share changes. The most common type of irregularity in 2006 was "failure to fulfil commitments entered into" 18,9%. This result was the outcome of high share of this type in SAPARD 45.9%. This type of comparison made on the base of irregular amount is heavily influenced by few cases involving high share of irregular amount. In ISPA four cases with the type of irregularity "absence or incompatibility of contract" made up 85.9% of irregular amount of all cases. In PHARE the concentration was lower, the most detected modus operandi "infringement with regards to the co-financing system" compose 18.5%.
Table PA 6: Type of irregularity by irregular amount
All years 2006
Share in Cumulative Cumulative
% share Share in %
share
Missing or incomplete documents 12.92% 12.92% 0.30% 0.30%
Failure to respect other
regulations/contract conditions 12.43% 25.35% 2.67% 2.97%
Non-eligible expenditure 11.49% 36.85% 7.99% 10.96%
Falsified supporting documents 8.73% 45.57% 3.08% 14.04%
Failure to fulfil commitments entered into 6.57% 52.14% 18.87% 32.91%
Action not completed 5.25% 57.39% 0.22% 33.13%
Other irregularities 4.66% 62.05% 12.08% 45.21%
5.2.3. Impact on the budget
In the pre-accession irregularity reporting form the budget year is not indicated and the data concerning project numbers are very often incomplete which makes it impossible to assess the impact on the budget in the given budget year. Given that the pre-accession funds are being phased out, chart PA5 is an attempt to present already a global picture for all years.
This graph has to be interpreted with caution for two reasons. Firstly, the different attitude of Member States towards detecting and reporting obligations. The countries more efficient in detecting and more willing to report irregularities will have this share at a considerably higher level, while countries reluctant to reporting will look better, even if this does not necessarily mean that they protect the EU financial interests better. The second problem is that data used for the table presents the allocation, which does not reflect actual implementation of the funds. Depending on the efficiency in implementation of the country's authorities the figures might rise.
Chart PA 5: Eligible expenditure and irregular amounts as % of expenditure all years
30,00%
Eligible amount/allocation
25,00%24,47%
Irregular amount/allocation
r e20,00%
d i t u
e n
15,00%
x p
12,10%12,73%13,64%
f
e
o
%10,00%
Romania and Lithuania; in these countries irregular amounts as a percentage of eligible expenditure is low. At the other extreme is Slovenia and Bulgaria which report projects with high irregular share, which in many cases equals almost 100%. Despite a high share of irregular amounts in eligible expenditure in these countries, the total share of the irregular amounts in allocated expenditure remains at the low level (1%) because these countries report very little.
Chart PA 6: Reported irregular amount as share of reported eligible expenditure
100%
90%
80%
70%
59,09%
60%
r e
50%46,86%
S ha
40%
30%25,24%
20%16,87%14,12%13,21%
10%8,21%
2,62% 2,51% 2,13% 0,75% 0,42% 0,37%
0%
SI BG EE HU SK LV CZ A ll MS RO LT MT CY PL
5.3. Specific analysis
Taking into consideration the fact that the quality of the reports remains far from being fully reliable and comparable between reporting countries, attempt to analyse them should be treated very carefully. The highest number of reported cases in 2006 was in PHARE fund. The trend has been slightly changing, so far dominated SAPARD irregularities, PHARE, with the irregularities reported in 2006, almost reached the level of SAPARD in all years' statistics. Both SAPARD and PHARE funds have more relatively smaller projects in comparison to ISPA fund. In 2006 average total eligible amount in SAPARD and PHARE funds' project was EUR 0.3 million and in ISPA fund this average was EUR 13.1 million. In comparison to 2005 the average eligible amount in PHARE decreased by 30% and in SAPARD the average decreased by 17%. On the other side, in ISPA it increased more than 3 fold.
Chart PA 7: Distribution of communications by number of reports
100%
80%
S h
60%
a r
40%ISPA
eSA PA RD
20%
PHA RE
0%
2 3
2 5
2 2 4
2 6L
2 T A
Ye arT O
In 2006, the highest average irregular amount (Community financing) per reported project was in ISPA with EUR 61,957, decreasing in comparison to 2005. PHARE and SAPARD had respectively EUR 41,117 and EUR 28,924. Comparing Members States, the highest average amount per project in PHARE and SAPARD funds was reported by Slovakia, with EUR 166,386 and EUR 180,022, respectively, and in ISPA by Romania with EUR 64,875.
The graph below compares average irregular amount per project in 2006 with all the years. One can observe that in almost all the countries this has either remained stable or dropped, the only exception is Slovakia. What caused this sudden increase remains to be clarified and requires further analysis. In 2006 for all funds and all countries the average amount irregular per case was EUR 36,749 and decreased in comparison to 2005 by 41%.
Chart PA 9: Average irregular amount
250.000
2006
200.0002006 Average
All years
150.000Alle years average
100.000
50.000
BG CY CZ EE HU LT LV MT PL RO SI SK TR
Me mber States/Acce ding Countries
5.3.1. Irregularity vs Suspected Fraud
Distinguishing between irregularity and suspected fraud poses certain problems. Reporting authorities very reluctantly qualify case graph PA2 shows that only 68%
of reports qualify the irregularities. This forces OLAF to qualify reports very often based on the incomplete and scarce information in the report. Considering this limitations, estimation of the level of fraud should be interpreted very carefully.
Chart PA 10: Share of suspected fraud in reported cases
16,00%
14,00%
12,00%
10,00%
By amounts
%8,00%
By No cases
6,00%
4,00%
2,00%
0,00%
2002*2003200420052006
Yea r
-
*Includes irregularities reported until 2002
In absolute terms suspected fraud in both number of reports and irregular amount has been steadily growing each year. The drop in 2004 and 2005 was primarily caused by increased number of all irregularity reports.
The share of amount of cases classified as suspected fraud in the total eligible amount of reported projects is very low, representing 0.2%, taking into account that the total irregular amount of all reported projects is only 2.5% of the sum of eligible amount. The percentage of the sum of suspected fraud in the total allocated amount is respectively even lower 0.03%. This number should be higher if the actual amount of eligible expenditure of projects implemented were compared. However, the final share of suspected fraud cases in pre-accession funds remains very low and not in line with what is observed in other European funds.
Table PA 7: Recovery by reporting country
Amount recovered Amount to be recovered Recovery rate
BG 176,168 2,808,742 5.90%
CY
CZ 260,665 886,673 22.72%
EE 2,636,445 509,096 83.82%
HU 1,354,978 585,081 69.84%
LT 96,388 1,715,801 5.32%
LV 10,979 277,736 3.80%
MT
PL 1,473,088 896,996 62.15%
RO 4,211,918 4,306,859 49.44%
SI 182,830
SK 763,303 2,421,359 23.97%
TR 147,816
Total 10,983,931 14,738,990 42.70%
Table PA8 presenting distribution by year, shows two phenomena; first is time delay in recovery process. The highest recovery rate concerns cases reported in 2004 two years might be the necessary time gap to finish all the procedures required by law. After 2004 the recovery rate drops but we still may expect it to rise in the future. Secondly, cases reported before 2004 where the risk that this amounts will not be recovered is very high, as they have been pending for a long period and usually become prescribed.
Table PA 8: Recovery by reporting year
Year Amount recovered Amount to be recovered Recovery rate
200256 982 16,440 5.64%
2003 525,676 1,490,063 26.08%
2004 3,287,674 1,731,445 65.50%
5.5. Conclusions
The irregular amounts decreased by 29.9%, despite the fact that the number of reported cases have increased together with reported eligible amount (by 122%).
There is a clear need for unified interpretation, use of guidelines and working documents to ensure comparability of data between different countries and different funds.
The most common method of detection in 2006 both by irregular amount and number of communications was control of documents 45% of detected cases.
In 2006 the most frequently reported type by number of irregularity communicated across all the pre-accession funds and in each one was "non-eligible expenditure".
By reported irregular amounts the most detected modus operandi was "failure to fulfil commitments entered into".
Impact on the budget varies from country to country, but it more reflects the specific country's willingness to report, than the amount of irregularities and should be interpreted very cautiously. In comparison between the funds the highest impact of irregular amounts on the budget was in SAPARD, 0.67%.
The low impact on the budget of both eligible expenditures and irregular amount in comparison with other funds shows, that new Member States are generally underreporting.
In comparison with other pre-accession funds immaterial output in PHARE projects appears to be more prone to fraudulent attempts.
Recovery is more successful the earlier it is started. There is a very limited chance to recover the irregular amount in cases pending for over 3 years.
ANNEX 1 TRADITIONAL OWN RESOURCES
Number of cases OWNRES and amounts for the period 2003-2006 by Member State
Member State 2003 2004 2005 2006
% %
Cases Amount Cases Amount Cases Amount Cases Amount Change Change
AT 104 16,030,722 74 7,735,468 80 6,069,811 72 6,857,684 -10.00% 12.98%
BE 492 8,905,453 805 18,179,933 641 20,877,076 360 12,387,812 -43.84% -40.66%
DE 532 66,748,080 502 32,443,031 1,132 62,323,595 855 46,345,172 -24.47% -25.64%
DK 68 8,033,263 80 6,979,600 64 6,884,753 62 6,067,958 -3.13% -11.86%
ES 258 22,652,702 266 18,615,582 501 48,906,603 557 27,590,199 11.18% -43.59%
FI 24 1,030,908 28 1,597,791 30 1,992,413 21 1,464,957 -30.00% -26.47%
FR 205 15,873,554 275 20,950,337 348 35,038,375 294 33,387,673 -15.52% -4.71%
GR 51 1,867,288 50 4,099,877 53 8,061,253 21 442,048 -60.38% -94.52%
IE 33 2,340,846 10 401,444 22 671,846 44 2,604,534 100.00% 287.67%
IT 253 54,921,997 217 25,861,683 296 31,440,898 337 69,882,133 13.85% 122.27%
LU 1 1 49,291 100.00% 100.00%
NL 783 58,910,415 552 44,444,758 1,771 34,885,355 1,327 63,284,120 -25.07% 81.41%
PT 22 2,197,568 15 630,533 20 1,677,818 17 835,319 -15.00% -50.21%
SE 48 1,563,258 68 6,028,294 60 3,293,308 44 2,164,111 -26.67% -34.29%
UK 356 8,125,597 314 25,201,890 687 58,105,332 882 61,250,909 28.38% 5.41%
EUR-15 TOTAL 3,230 269,201,651 3,256 7,735,468 5,705 320,228,436 4,894 334,613,920 -14.22% 4.49%
CY 2 54,136 16 381,027 7 193,604 -56.25% -49.19%
CZ 4 481,813 19 526,638 61 2,287,699 221.05% 334.40%
EE 3 54,900 3 165,287 5 178,010 66.67% 7.70%
HU 29 1,692,522 70 2,442,533 93 7,428,526 32.86% 204.13%
LT 8 205,209 35 1,518,024 34 1,634,868 -2.86% 7.70%
LV 7 252,392 9 611,663 26 1,422,325 188.89% 132.53%
MT 2 125,735 5 856,231 3 574,945 -40.00% -32.85%
PL 17 651,587 55 1,369,657 69 2,067,153 25.45% 50.92%
SI 7 586,363 22 233,837 24 950,848 9.09% 306.63%
SK 3 318,119 4 68,348 27 1,527,433 575.00% 2134.79%
EUR-10 TOTAL 82 4,422,776 238 8,173,245 349 18,265,411 46.64% 123.48%
ANNEX 2 TRADITIONAL OWN RESOURCES
OWNRES CASES BY MEMBER STATE
2.000
1.800
1.600
E S
1.400
A S
1.200
F C
R O1.000
800
M BE
NU
600
400
200
ATBE DE DK ESFIFR GRIEITLU NLPT SE UK CY CZ EE HU LTLV MT PLSISK
MEMBER STATE
ANNEX 3 TRADITIONAL OWN RESOURCES
IMPACT ON CUSTOM PROCEDURE FREE CIRCULATION
IMPACT AMOUNTS
YEAR CASES IMPACT CASES % AMOUNTS
OF TOTAL ESTABLISHED ESTABLISHED % OF
TOTAL
2002 1,872 71.59% 197,172,984 54.20%
2003 2,152 66.63% 212,132,130 78.80%
2004 2,209 66.18% 180,429,114 82.92%
2005 3,138 52.80% 246,915,054 75.19%
2006 3,302 62.98% 231,911,905 65.72%
ANNEX 4 TRADITIONAL OWN RESOURCES
TOP 10 CHAPTER HEADINGS
2005 2006
AMOUNT AMOUNT
CN PRODUCT CASES CN PRODUCT CASES
85 TVs and parts etc. 69,030,016 1,091 85 TVs and parts etc. 62,323,956 952
24 Tobacco / cigarettes 30,869,402 361 24 Tobacco / cigarettes 27,648,602 221
84 Engines and parts 24,075,255 441 15 Oils and fats 22,849,582 83
17 Sugar / sugar-products 23,680,810 70 61 Clothing 19,842,704 205
61 Clothing 22,086,102 363 28 Inorganic products 16,051,034 71
87 Cars / motors and parts 17,437,451 258 10 Cereals 15,054,215 48
62 Clothing 8,918,022 682 02 Meat 14,827,056 319
70 Glass and glassware 8,766,127 48 84 Engines and parts 14,726,730 361
03 Fish etc. 8,275,529 159 87 Cars / motors and parts 12,179,468 284
90 Optical instruments etc. 7,467,521 168 17 Sugar / sugar-products 11,682,690 85
ANNEX 5 TRADITIONAL OWN RESOURCES
TYPES OF GOODS AFFECTED BY FRAUD AND IRREGULARITY DURING PERIOD 2004-2006
2004 2005 2006
TARIFF TARIFF
CODES CASES AMOUNTS TARIFF
CODES CASES AMOUNTS
CODES CASES AMOUNTS
24022090 282 24,964,461 24022090 278 22,818,093 24022090 177 19,634,959
85281252 54 14,168,516 17019910 48 21,842,165 85254099 22 16,122,279
85393190 52 10,177,120 85282190 96 12,358,078 28121018 26 13,568,744
02071410 39 9,402,633 84089071 3 8,827,262 15091010 15 11,258,441
85282190 87 5,659,018 85281252 13 8,287,649 61103099 27 8,193,368
28046900 17 5,460,992 70320000 24 7,466,988 07032000 64 7,754,456
85273191 2 4,867,478 85219000 130 7,039,784 85393190 99 7,397,600
15099000 3 4,436,261 61101130 46 6,073,316 10062098 8 7,333,373
28181090 3 3,821,532 84733010 156 5,529,445 73121071 1 6,376,418
15091090 4 3,762,623 61103099 47 5,286,291 15091090 16 6,090,434
24021000 19 3,539,311 07032000 75 5,270,531 17019910 20 5,955,499
95000000 1 3,246,282 85281294 33 5,186,450 10063000 1 5,818,641
85281294 53 3,003,187 85393190 87 4,635,616 85219000 136 5,479,730
73121082 44 2,895,767 03061380 49 3,810,167 17029099 27 5,320,690
87120030 23 2,713,824 61102099 64 3,635,415 24022000 2 5,189,984
85244099 1 2,678,765 83051000 9 3,628,129 02023090 52 5,046,779
07032000 49 2,475,622 21069098 57 3,600,929 02072710 125 4,738,126
02072710 67 2,448,714 85254099 25 3,510,702 08030019 49 4,588,147
02023090 18 2,385,116 24022000 7 3,468,348 02071410 105 4,362,952
17019910 29 2,352,488 87032319 14 3,280,610 96131000 14 4,091,550
85438995 29 2,201,595 02072710 44 2,737,315 62031990 185 3,712,913
85239000 13 2,098,035 81122900 2 2,715,061 36799690 1 3,679,969
85254099 13 2,067,792 74261200 1 2,227,132 85281294 71 3,564,896
62021290 1 2,064,831 08030019 34 2,217,262 84733010 84 3,402,663
84119990 11 1,869,861 84821090 10 2,197,135 83051000 5 2,897,569
ANNEX 6 TRADITIONAL OWN RESOURCES
FRAUD AND IRREGULARITIES: BREAKDOWN BY ORIGIN OF THE GOODS DURING 2004-2006
2004 2005 2006
COUNTRY CASES COUNTRY CASES COUNTRY CASES
CHINA 531 51,999,923 CHINA 1,217 75,782,726 CHINA 1.326 75,742,768
USA 249 15,514,313 USA 724 31,453,362 NOT SPEC. 781 45,458,100
BRAZIL 112 13,852,977 NOT SPEC. 1,139 27,304,314 JAPAN 281 32,084,547
TURKEY 54 12,680,569 JAPAN 313 23,449,157 USA 655 29,067,751
SOUTH KOREA 134 12,234,293 CANADA 63 13,643,669 BRAZIL 340 20,656,720
THAILAND 129 12,066,387 JAMAICA 164 12,776,220 THAILAND 71 16,877,242
MALAYSIA 54 12,062,416 SOUTH KOREA 117 10,784,308 TUNISIA 48 14,281,872
JAPAN 122 8,389,699 SPAIN 13 9,522,793 GERMANY 37 13,107,572
NOT SPEC. 156 7,922,284 NORTH KOREA 5 8,136,558 SOUTH KOREA 136 10,929,915
POLAND 113 7,390,429 NETHERLANDS 633 7,654,024 TURKEY 84 10,846,496
ANNEX 7 TRADITIONAL OWN RESOURCES
RECOVERY RATE TOR 2006
MEMBER
STATES AMOUNT RECOVERED RECOVERY RATE
AT 6,857,684 2,299,000 33.52%
BE 12,387,812 1,537,940 12.41%
CY 193,604 91,749 47.39%
CZ 2,287,699 1,430,251 62.52%
DE 46,345,172 28,722,922 61.98%
DK 6,067,958 4,617,533 76.10%
EE 178,010 32,457 18.23%
ES 27,590,199 13,535,077 49.06%
FI 1,464,957 241,489 16.48%
FR 33,387,673 11,654,263 34.91%
GR 442,048 342,322 77.44%
HU 7,428,526 753,265 10.14%
IE 2,604,534 2,561,438 98.35%
IT 69,882,133 1,913,057 2.74%
LT 1,634,868 763,832 46.72%
LU 49,291 49,291 100.00%
LV 1,422,325 375,539 26.40%
MT 574,945 0.00%
NL 63,284,120 6,215,407 9.82%
PL 2,067,153 1,102,239 53.32%
PT 835,319 255,621 30.60%
SE 2,164,111 2,001,858 92.50%
SI 950,848 304,093 31.98%
SK 1,527,433 510,713 33.44%
UK 61,250,909 32,057,182 52.34%
EUR-25 TOTAL 352,879,331 113,368,538 32.13%
ANNEX 8 TRADITIONAL OWN RESOURCES
Smuggling - Seized and confiscated goods (cigarettes)
Member State 2005 2006
Smuggling Amounts of Seized and Amounts of Smuggling Amounts of Seized and Amounts of
AT 22 4,085,131 3 371,742 19 2,354,102 4 97,191
BE 1 12,347 13 456,136 1 104,925 4 78,960
DE 104 8,747,399 5 91,667 44 2,948,657 1 52,300
FI 9 377,922 15 1,225,660
FR 2 10 983,652 2 7
DK 1
GR 7 5,576,120 11 5 3
IE
IT 6 3,433,627 7 2 5,189,984 5
LU
NL 6 232,993
PT
ES
SE 4
UK
EUR-15 Total 151 22,232,546 59 2,136,190 89 11,823,328 24 228,451
CY
CZ
EE 1 140,655
HU 4 82,329 8 21,180 1 36,350 6 258,599
LV
LT 2 26,897 3 43,336 2 25,876 3 87,498
MT 4 408,996 1 184,351
PL 13 365,394 17 394,217
SK 3 397,874
SI 6 25,928 9 549,900
EUR-10 Total 6 109,226 35 1,005,489 3 62,226 39 1,872,439
EUR-25 Total 157 22,341,772 94 3,141,679 92 11,885,554 63 2,100,890
ANNEX 9 TRADITIONAL OWN RESOURCES
PERCENTAGE OF CASES CLASSIFIED AS FRAUD BY MEMBER STATE
2005-2006
120%
100%
E S
80%
A S
D C
60%
R AU
F40%
%
20%
0%
AT BE CY CZ DE DK EE ES FIFR GR HUIEITLT LU LV MT NL PL PT SE SI SK UK
MEMBER STATE
ANNEX 10 TRADITIONAL OWN RESOURCES
PERCENTAGE OF CASES CLASSIFIED AS FRAUD PER MEMBER STATE PERIOD 2005-2006
MEMBER 2005 2006
STATE CASES FRAUD % FRAUD CASES FRAUD % FRAUD
AT 80 37 46% 72 24 33%
BE 641 45 7% 360 32 9%
CY 16 4 25% 7 1 14%
CZ 19 1 5% 61 2 3%
DE 1,132 148 13% 855 80 9%
DK 64 6 9% 62 12 19%
EE 3 1 33% 5 0%
ES 501 272 54% 557 236 42%
FI 30 8 27% 21 17 81%
FR 348 16 5% 294 12 4%
GR 53 50 94% 21 21 100%
HU 70 37 53% 93 50 54%
IE 22 0% 44 0%
IT 296 135 46% 337 208 62%
LT 35 1 3% 34 3 9%
LU 0% 1 1 0%
LV 9 0% 26 1 4%
MT 5 5 100% 3 3 100%
NL 1,771 368 21% 1,327 405 31%
PL 55 16 29% 69 19 28%
PT 20 10 50% 17 8 47%
SE 60 4 7% 44 0%
SI 22 14 64% 24 11 46%
SK 4 0% 27 8 30%
UK 687 4 1% 882 1 0%
EUR-25 5,943 1,182 20% 5,243 1,155 22%
ANNEX 11
update 14/03/2007
EAGGF GUARANTEE
IRREGULARITIES COMMUNICATED BY THE MEMBER STATES
YEARS 1998 - 2006
(amounts in 1,000)
YEARCASESAMOUNT% OF BUDGETEAGGF-BUDGET
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
19992,697232,1540.5939,540,800
19982,412284,8410.7339,132,500
4,0001.40
EAGGF Guarantee
3,500
1.20
3,000
1.00B
u
2,500d
esg
0.80e
ast a
ANNEX 12
update 14/03/2007
EAGGF GUARANTEE
IRREGULARITIES COMMUNICATED BY THE MEMBER STATES UNDER
REGULATION N° 595/91
2006
(amounts in 1,000)
Member StatesNumber of casesAmounts% of EAGGF expenditure
AT931,0410.08
BE571,2580.13
CY7780.16
CZ91610.04
DE4897,3200.11
DK331,1870.10
EE10990.13
EL1111,3060.04
ES68325,9370.39
FI334550.05
FR54811,6890.12
HU310
IE948570.05
IT14020,0030.36
LT303090.10
LU3130.03
LV1130.01
MT
ANNEX 13
14/03/2007
EAGGF GUARANTEE
SITUATION OF RECOVERY IN CASES COMMUNICATED UNDER
REGULATION N° 595/91
(amounts in 1,000)
To be recoveredTo be recoveredIn Justice *)Amounts
Member declared "irrecoverable"
Statescases communicatedcases communicated
by Member States
before 2006in 2006before 2006before 2006
AT2,529360374579
BE68,23278564,134639
CY
CZ13289
DE74,8183,68032,90611,057
DK1,1089823890
EE 57
EL55,7801,16427,1382,343
ES264,42022,387121,22783,075
FI247102223
FR81,5209,29143,3117,191
HU
IE9162719087
IT682,2243,461165,872136,792
LT10423104
LU39
LV
MT
NL12,3553,1403,237770
PL1761161823,458
PT26,3583,04119,373
SE574192 186
SI233
ANNEX 14
STRUCTURAL MEASURES
IRREGULARITIES* COMMUNICATED BY MEMBER STATES 1998-2006
Impact
N° of Financial amounts Total budget
on
Year irregularities (x 1,000) (x 1,000,000) budget
2006 3,216 702,302 38,430 1.83%
2005 3,570 600,816 37,192 1.62%
2004 3,339 695,611 35,665 1.95%
2003 2,487 482,215 30,764 1.57%
2002 4,656 614,094 30,556 2.01%
2001 1,194 201,549 29,823 0.68%
2000 1,217 114,227 25,556 0.45%
1999 698 120,633 30,654 0.39%
ANNEX 15
PART 1
STRUCTURAL FUNDS
IRREGULARITIES REPORTED BY MEMBER STATES - 2006
REGULATION N. 1681/94
N° OF IRREGULARITIES
MEMBER STATES ERDF ESF EAGGF - FIFG TOTAL
AT 40 18 Guid.
1 59
BE 15 10 6 31
CY
CZ 32 8 40
DE 190 98 32 1 321
DK 16 3 19
EE 8 2 1 11
EL 30 22 16 2 70
ES 128 137 66 15 346
FI 17 18 12 1 48
FR 66 20 12 98
HU 24 17 50 91
IE
IT 371 138 200 35 744
LT 7 1 17 25
LU 3 3
LV 1 2 3
MT 1 1 2
NL 16 161 5 182
PL* 24* 56* 65* 2* 147*
ANNEX 15
PART 2
STRUCTURAL FUNDS
IRREGULARITIES REPORTED BY MEMBER STATES - 2006
REGULATION N. 1681/94
FINANCIAL AMOUNTS INVOLVED IN IRREGULARITIES
MEMBER STATES ERDF ESF EAGGF -
Guid. FIFG TOTAL
AT 6,377,317 1,455,574 18,706 7,851,597
BE 2,939,477 273,430 468,082 3,680,989
CY
CZ 2,886,483 114,916 3,001,399
DE 21,107,853 5,210,479 839,865 45,691 27,203,888
DK 750,103 50,131 800,234
EE 1,009,093 30,245 301,723 1,341,061
EL 8,385,036 876,880 3,714,627 321,199 13,297,742
ES 69,715,238 8,451,387 5,993,174 1,535,101 85,694,900
FI 667,718 2,006,963 290,800 27,619 2,993,100
FR 3,134,088 687,011 578,593 4,399,692
HU 1,786,104 428,634 3,902,796 6,117,534
IE
IT 169,776,855 26,858,293 28,912,133 2,671,283 228,218,564
LT 260,475 16,640 1,016,915 1,294,029
LU 131,931 131,931
LV 15,714 27,230 42,944
MT 384,750 384,750
NL 4,466,030 10,680,857 178,934 15,325,821
ANNEX 16
STRUCTURAL FUNDS
IRREGULARITIES COMMUNICATED BY MEMBER STATES UNDER
REGULATION N. 1681/94
SITUATION OF RECOVERY
Amounts declared
MEMBER To be To be recovered
In justice before 'irrecoverable'(**) by
STATES recovered communicated in
before 2006 2006 2006 (*) Member States before
2005
AT 6,893,472 5,168,883 1,815,891 1,000,768
BE 12,507,191 1,578,077 828,207 11,504,913
CZ 14,155 243,624 35,401,878
DE 243,850,697 16,116,789 45,438,671
DK 14,239,973 378,409 13,658,894
EE 27,957 335,187
EL 20,823,291 7,907,453 1,787,351
ES 58,050,709 21,250,413 5,195,066 1,154,085
FI 2,469,741 642,399 585,448 569,883
FR 7,784,240 393,614 493,765 159,249
HU 3,426 142,985
IE 1,543,879 282,390
IT 292,028,973 143,886,672 248,101,909
LT 94,126 65,751 151,604
LU 40,891
LV 90,991 42,944 51,056
MT 384,750
NL 4,581,559 446,993 684,270
PL*** 14,735 752,200***
PT 7,911,608 24,720,820 1,835,497 432,938
SE 661,119 496,545 43,747
ANNEX 17
COHESION FUND - 2006
IRREGULARITIES COMMUNICATED BY MEMBER STATES UNDER
REGULATION N. 1831/94
MEMBER STATES N° OF FINANCIAL AMOUNTS FIN. AMOUNTS TO BE
IRREGULARITIES INVOLVED RECOVERED
CZ 6
EL 103 117,856,924 12,698,144
ES 82 44,472,847 30,179,534
HU 6 175,788 77,469
LT 1 83,381
LV 2 18,851 18,851
PL* 10* 249,102* 128,787*
PT 18 23,747,904 14,850,306
TOTAL 228 186,604,797 57,953,091
*These figures include 7 irregularities communicated in relation to the year 2005 that could not be processed in time for the annual report 2005. If these are added to the year 2005, the number of reported irregularities from Poland decreased from 2005 to 2006 (10 in 2005 and 3 in 2006).
ANNEX 18
PRE-ACCESSION FUNDS
Irregularities reported in 2006
Table
Fund All funds
No Reports Eligible amount57 Irregular amount Amount to be recovered
Bulgaria 27 10,061,863 1,693,780 1,654,406
Cyprus 1 1,530,000
Czech Republic 4 155,650 155,650 155,650
Estonia 4 106,366 62,166 45,813
Hungary 16 1,437,832 268,245 9,205
Latvia 16 730,774 211,242 178,483
Lithuania 2 314,384 3,480
Malta 5 1,147,287 8,600
Poland 106 17,664,751 2,414,251 729,497
Romania 188 405,067,200 5,471,695 3,310,006
Slovakia 13 5,038,759 1,871,154 719,184
Slovenia 1 129,935
Turkey 1 147,816 147,816 147,816
Total 384 443,532,616 12,308,078 6,950,060
Table 2
Fund PHARE
No Reports Eligible amount Irregular amount Amount to be recovered
Bulgaria 7 6,414,324 295,412 279,556
Cyprus 1 1,530,000
Hungary 8 1,212,979 206,079 9,205
Latvia 13 527,854 91,308 58,549
Lithuania 1 44,550 3,480
Malta 5 1,147,287 8,600
Poland 55 13,182,533 1,948,782 489,426
Romania 97 30,397,056 2,817,451 2,194,851
Slovakia 10 4,498,693 1,331,088 179,118
Slovenia 1 129,935
Turkey 1 147,816 147,816 147,816
Total 199 59,233,027 6,850,016 3,358,521
Table 3
Fund SAPARD
No Reports Eligible amount Irregular amount Amount to be recovered
Bulgaria 18 2,762,292 1,388,956 1,374,850
Czech Republic 4 155,650 155,650 155,650
Estonia 4 106,366 62,166 45,813
Hungary 8 224,853 62,166
Latvia 3 202,920 119,934 119,934
Lithuania 1 269,834
Poland 51 4,482,218 465,469 240,071
ANNEX 19
PRE-ACCESSION FUNDS
Irregularities reported below the threshold in 2006
Table 1
Fund PHARE
No Reports Eligible amount Irregular amount Amount to be recovered
Bulgaria 3 42,900 13,757 13,757
Hungary 5 1,033,493 26,593 9,205
Lithuania 1 44,550 3,480
Latvia 10 415,790 36,699 12,779
Malta 5 1,147,287 8,600
Poland 10 6,955,482 35,788 10,839
Romania 54 23,020,991 94,494 49,645
Slovakia 5 2,667,250 15,373 9,974
Total 93 35,327,743 234,784 106,199
Table 2
Fund SAPARD
No Reports Eligible amount Irregular amount Amount to be recovered
Bulgaria 7 1,310,914 3,557 3,468
Estonia 1 2,828 2,828 2,828
ANNEX 20
PRE-ACCESSION FUNDS
Irregularities reported all years
Table 1
Fund All founds
No Reports Eligible amount Irregular amount Amount to be recovered
Bulgaria 62 17,808,953 8,344,733 2,808,742
Cyprus 5 5,624,616 23,807
Czech Republic 28 21,073,573 1,731,151 886,673
Estonia 28 23,479,841 5,927,074 509,096
Hungary 90 13,223,427 2,230,815 585,081
Lithuania 38 102,256,833 2,179,392 1,715,801
Latvia 31 2,385,596 315,062 277,736
Malta 5 1,147,287 8,600
Poland 208 971,503,356 3,636,022 896,996
Romania 437 580,655,836 14,548,953 4,306,859
Slovenia 36 2,448,506 1,446,941 182,830
Slovakia 89 44,907,690 6,339,712 2,421,359
Turkey 1 147,816 147,816 147,816
Total 1058 1,786,663,331 46,880,079 14,738,990
Table 2
Fund PHARE
No Reports Eligible amount Irregular amount Amount to be recovered
Bulgaria 23 6,991,629 558,025 480,915
Cyprus 5 5,624,616 23,807
Czech Republic 15 1,828,695 457,037 442,506
Estonia 14 6,842,982 2,876,832 1,680
Hungary 42 10,577,626 2,145,024 585,081
Latvia 17 807,656 95,875 58,549
Lithuania 20 962,533 607,049 486,214
Malta 5 1,147,287 8,600
Poland 91 342,176,055 2,049,906 489,426
Romania 150 62,135,113 4,217,935 2,724,791
Slovakia 82 17,015,931 5,666,591 1,832,239
Slovenia 6 950,053 158,890 178,045
Turkey 1 147,816 147,816 147,816
Total 471 457,207,992 19,013,388 7,427,263
Table 3
Fund SAPARD
No Reports Eligible amount Irregular amount Amount to be recovered
Bulgaria 36 4,609,447 2,454,626 2,327,827
Czech Republic 12 495,664 482,753 444,167
Estonia 10 3,413,367 2,879,465 338,102
Table 4
Fund ISPA
No Reports Eligible amount Irregular amount Amount to be recovered
Bulgaria 3 6,207,877 5,332,082
Czech Republic 1 18,749,214 791,361
Estonia 4 13,223,492 170,777 169,314
Lithuania 7 96,848,580 2,332 476
Poland 21 621,896,620 766,806 102,437
Romania 61 391,270,289 2,819,397 97,822
Slovakia 1 27,149,200 49,054 49,054
Total 98 1,175,345,273 9,931,809 419,103
ANNEX 21
PRE-ACCESSION FUNDS
Irregularities communicated by Member States and Acceding Countries
Fund PHARE SAPARD ISPA
No Eligible Irregular Amount to
Eligible Irregular Amount to
Eligible amount Irregular Amount to
Reports amount amount be No
recovered Reports amount amount be No
recovered Reports amount be
recovered
2002 1 22,600 11,300 11,300 6 131,861 14,890 5,140
2003 52 320,212,636 672,467 377,025 33 6,164,264 4,742,336 1,095,324 18 280,145,353 850,802 17,714
2004 68 12,671,249 4,144,810 985,628 132 50,484,608 5,624,391 442,164 26 474,367,843 949,050 303,654
2005 151 65,068,480 7,334,795 2,694,788 164 54,005,218 3,287,268 1,855,711 23 79,856,601 6,939,891 482
2006 199 59,233,027 6,850,016 3,358,521 160 43,455,975 4,280,887 3,499,425 25 340,843,614 1,177,176 92,113
Total 471 457,207,992 19,013,388 7,427,263 489 154,110,066 17,934,882 6,892,624 98 1,175,345,273 9,931,809 419,103
ANNEX 22
IRREGULARITIES REPORTED BY MEMBER STATES IN 2006 EAGGF, STRUCTURAL AND COHESION FUNDS, OWN RESOURCES
EAGGF Structural Actions Cohesion Fund Own Resources TOTAL
CASES TOTAL AMOUNT CASES TOTAL AMOUNT CASES TOTAL AMOUNT CASES TOTAL AMOUNT CASES TOTAL AMOUNT
AT 93 1,041 59 7,852 72 6,858 224 15,750
BE 57 1,258 31 3,681 360 12,388 448 17,327
CY 7 78 7 194 14 272
CZ 9 161 40 3,001 6 61 2,288 116 5,450
DE 489 7,320 321 27,204 855 46,345 1,665 80,869
DK 33 1,187 19 800 62 6,068 114 8,055
EE 10 99 11 1,341 5 178 26 1,618
EL 111 1,306 70 13,298 103 117,857 21 442 305 132,903
ES 683 25,937 346 85,695 82 44,473 557 27,590 1,668 183,695
FI 33 455 48 2,993 21 1,465 102 4,913
FR 548 11,689 98 4,400 294 33,388 940 49,476
HU 3 10 91 6,118 6 176 93 7,429 193 13,732
IE 94 857 44 2,605 138 3,462
IT 140 20,003 744 228,219 337 69,882 1,221 318,104
LT 30 309 25 1,294 1 83 34 1,635 90 3,321
LU 3 13 3 132 1 49 7 194
LV 1 13 3 43 2 19 26 1,422 32 1,497
MT 2 38 3 575 5 613
NL 87 5,702 182 15,326 1,327 63,284 1,596 84,312
PL* 67 842 147 12,254 10 249 69 2,067 293 15,412
PT 359 3,745 440 37,173 18 23,748 17 835 834 65,501
SE 80 859 71 2,547 44 2,164 195 5,570
SI 1 7 2,598 24 951 32 3,549
SK 7 555 27 1,527 34 2,083
UK 311 3,941 223 59,790 882 61,251 1,416 124,982
TOTAL 3,249 86,825 2,988 516,698 228 186,605 5,243 352,879 11,708 1,143,007
*These figures include 39 irregularities for the Structural Funds and 7 for the Cohesion Fund, communicated in relation to the year 2005 that could not be processed in time for the annual report 2005.
| publicatiedatum | 10-07-2007 |
|---|---|
| kenmerk | 11724/07 ADD 2 |
