Audit scope and approach

• Author: European Court of Auditors
• Pages: 14-15

14

Audit scope and approach

12 We decided to audit the work of managing authorities in fighting fraud in

cohesion policy because of the key role they play, and will continue to play in the

2021-2027 programming period. We assessed whether managing authorities have

properly fulfilled their responsibilities at each stage of the anti-fraud management

process: fraud prevention, fraud detection and fraud response (including reporting on

fraud and recovery of funds unduly paid). To this end, we assessed whether managing

authorities have:

(a) developed anti-fraud policies, performed a thorough risk assessment and

implemented adequate preventive and detective measures; and

(b) properly responded to detected fraud in coordination with the investigation and

prosecution bodies and with AFCOSs, considering the design of these services in

the Member States we visited.

13 We looked at the role played by managing authorities and AFCOSs in the Member

States in cohesion policy. We audited the managing authorities for the operational

programmes funded by the three main European Structural and Investment Funds

concerning EU cohesion policy: the CF, the ESF and the ERDF. We decided to exclude

the European Territorial Cooperation objective (ETC) of the ERDF, as the projects

financed by the corresponding OPs involve partners from different countries under the

supervision of authorities in different Member States.

14 We reviewed how managing authorities had considered the Member States’ legal

and strategic anti-fraud framework for the management of the anti-fraud process, in

particular when a national anti-fraud strategy was available. We invited all managing

authorities to participate in a survey on fraud prevention and detection measures and

obtained replies from authorities in 23 Member States.

15 We visited seven Member States: Bulgaria, France, Hungary, Greece, Latvia,

Romania and Spain. For the selection of these Member States, we considered the

fraud detection rates and the number of fraud cases presented in the 2016 PIF report,

as well as their correlation with other available fraud risk indicators. During our visits,

we met with representatives of the authorities responsible for implementing a total of

43 OPs (22 OPs for 2007-2013 and 21 OPs for 2014-2020) and with key actors in the

fight against fraud (prosecution and judicial bodies, investigative bodies, anti-fraud

agencies, competition authorities). In the Member States we visited we audited a