Follow-Up By Recommendation

• Year: 2021

7

2. FOLLOW-UP BY RECOMMENDATION

Methodology and thematic analysis:

The following section provides a comprehensive overview of the state of implementation of

each recommendation and summarises the replies received from each Member State. This

section is divided in three sub-sections, following the recommendations related to cross-

cutting aspects of the fight against fraud, and the revenue and expenditure sides of the budget

respectively. Each recommendation is analysed by firstly providing an overview of the

number of Member States that addressed each of the questions related to a recommendation

and secondly, by providing a summary of the most important details provided by each

Member State. For the reader's specific reference, the Member States' original replies are

listed in Section 3 of this document, "Member States’ replies".

The analysis is based on 26 Member States’ replies collected during December 2021 –

February 2022; Austria noted that they had no replies to the 2021 exercise.

1.4. Cross-cutting aspects of the fight against fraud

The Commission provided the following questionnaire to the Member States with regard to

addressing the first recommendation:

Q.1 For the Member States not having joined the EPPO yet. Are there plans to join the

EPPO in the short-medium term?

If YES, can you provide some additional information on the state-of-play?

Q.2 Have you adopted a national anti-fraud strategy?

If YES, did you communicate it to OLAF? If you did not communicate it, why? Please

transmit it without delay.

Has the NAFS been recently updated?

If YES (+ date of update), does the strategy/update cover the new significant risks linked to

the COVID-19 crisis and the RRF? Can you share what risks the new strategy has taken into

account? If the updated strategy doesn’t cover such risks, why is it so?

If NO (+ date of adoption of NAFS), is the update ongoing or are you considering updating

it? Can you please indicate a timeline for the adoption of a new / updated anti-fraud strategy?

The table below represents the overall results of the implementation of each question

corresponding to the Commission’s recommendations.

1.4.1. Joining the EPPO

Member States who had not joined the EPPO yet were asked whether they had plans to do so

in the short-medium term.

BE BG CZ DK DE EE IE EL ES FR HR IT CY LV LT LU HU MT NL AT PL PT RO SI SK FI SE

Q1

Q2

no answer

fully implemented

partly implemented

not implemented

not applicable

8

Twenty-two

21

Member States had joined the EPPO at the time of reporting. Out of the five

Member States that had not, Denmark and Ireland (both holding an opt-out from the area of

freedom, security and justice), Hungary, and Poland stated that they did not intend to join.

Sweden reported that it planned to join as soon as possible and that the government was

working on a legislative proposal to this end that would be ready by the end of 2022.

1.4.2. Adopting a national anti-fraud strategy (NAFS)

In response to the question of whether they adopted a national anti-fraud strategy (NAFS),

eleven

22

Member States replied that they adopted a NAFS, four

23

adopted a sectoral one,

while eleven

24

were yet to adopt one. The replies showed a diverse picture in terms of the

scope and content of the anti-fraud strategies adopted by the Member States, as reflected in

the remainder of this section.

Belgium had not yet adopted a NAFS at the time of reporting. The AFCOS was under

restructuring, to enable the exchange of information between the various national and

regional authorities, and ultimately the establishment of a national anti-fraud strategy. In the

interim, its anti-fraud strategy was based on the strategies developed by the competent

authorities managing the funds at regional level (e.g. ESF, ERDF) and the strategy

implemented by Customs.

Bulgaria adopted a NAFS in November 2020, covering the period 2021-2027, and

communicated it to OLAF. It was developed by a working group of representatives of all

authorities responsible for managing and controlling EU funds and those responsible for

investigating fraud and took into account recommendations from the European Court of

Auditors and Commission guidelines. The strategy reflects new significant risks, in particular

in response to the outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic and its economic and social

consequences. It contains specific objectives for preventing and combating irregularities and

fraud, responsibilities and a mechanism for monitoring the implementation of the measures.

Czechia adopted a NAFS in June 2008 and updated it latest in May 2020; the strategy was

communicated to OLAF. It further noted than an updated NAFS reflecting new risks,

environment, and programming period would be adopted by the end of 2022.

Denmark had not adopted a national antifraud strategy at the time of reporting, but several of

the Danish AFCOS network-members had sectoral anti-fraud strategies, which also covered

fraud with EU funds.

Germany reported that it had not adopted a NAFS, but that a sectoral one was in place at the

level of ERDF Lower Saxony, complementing the current management and control system

and as a proportionate measure to prevent fraud. The authority expected that the risk of fraud

and corruption for the 2014-2020 funding period would be low, based on its assessment of

Lower Saxony’s performance in the 2007–2013 programming period. The strategy was being

updated as part of the reform of the management and control system for the 2021-2027

funding period. Moreover, the ERDF managing authorities in the Länder focused on their

own anti-fraud strategies and regarded their own management and control systems as a

21

Belgium, Bulgaria, Czechia, Germany, Estonia, Greece, Spain, France, Croatia, Italy, Cyprus, Latvia,

Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, the Netherlands, Austria, Portugal, Romania, Slovenia, Slovakia, Finland.

22

Bulgaria, Czechia, Estonia, France, Croatia, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Hungary, Malta, Slovakia.

23

Denmark, Germany, Greece, Portugal.

24

Belgium, Ireland, Spain, Cyprus, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Poland, Romania, Slovenia, Finland,

Sweden.

9

proportionate measure to prevent fraud. The risk of fraud was reviewed frequently in the

context of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Estonia updated its NAFS in February 2021, as the Anti-Corruption Action Plan 2021-2025,

and a corresponding Action Report in January 2022. The Anti-Corruption webpage, which

has been shared with the Commission, covers topics such as corruption or conflict of interests

and consists of different guidelines, handbooks, e-courses.

The Greek National Anti-Fraud Strategy for Structural Actions was adopted in 2014 and

updated in 2017, including a comprehensive overview of its associated Action Plan; it was

also communicated to OLAF. Although the action plan was completed, the Member State

reported that the NAFS continues to be systematically implemented. In the context of the

COVID-19 crisis and the new significant risks, a technical meeting of the Internal

Cooperation Network on Anti-Fraud Strategy in Structural Actions was held in July 2021 and

resulted in the adaptation of the managing authorities’ Fraud Risk Assessment Tool to

include risks and measures related to the COVID-19 crisis. In addition, the Management and

Control System (MCS) of the Fisheries and Maritime Operational Programme (MCS)

incorporated procedures and measures to prevent and combat fraud specifically in the

fisheries sector, although no formal anti-fraud strategy document was drafted. Concerning

RRF actions, the Special Recovery Fund Coordination Service (ERFA) in Greece reported

that an anti-corruption and anti-fraud strategy was developed based on prevention, detection

and effective response, which set targets and specified further actions where necessary.

Spain had not yet adopted a strategy but it reported that in 2020, the AFCOS prepared and

presented to the Commission its project entitled “A national anti -fraud strategy for Spain”,

related to financing within the framework of the Support Programme for Structural Reforms

of the EU (SRSP – TSI). This project started in October 2021, with a duration of 19 months,

and would serve to prepare a comprehensive NAFS, covering the four phases of the anti-

fraud cycle (prevention, detection, investigation, and recovery/sanctions).

France adopted a new anti-fraud strategy in February 2022, developed by the Inter-

ministerial Anti-Fraud Coordination Mission (MICAF), as AFCOS, in consultation with its

partners, which it communicated to the Commission. The strategy covers significant new

risks related to the RRF. The Member State set up a coordinating authority for the RRF - the

Secretariat-General of the Recovery Plan (SGPR), under the authority of the Prime Minister

and the Minister for the Economy, Finance and Recovery - which will centralise, among

other data, any irregularities detected in the implementation of the RRF measures.

Additionally, a working group of the various actors involved in the management of the new

EU funds, led by MICAF, will work to identify fraud risks specifically linked to the

allocation of these funds and exchange information in order to establish a typology of fraud

in view of future risk mapping.

Croatia referred to its previous anti-fraud strategies, the latest for 2014-2016 and which was

sent to OLAF at the time, and noted it had been fully implemented. As the AFCOS became

operational and no major weaknesses were identified, it adopted no new anti-fraud strategies

and did not update its existing ones. The AFCOS system has been constantly fine-tuned

through softer measures (e.g. irregularity management guidelines, fraud risk assessment at the

level of operational programmes). In addition, Croatia adopted in October 2021 a “Strategy

for the Prevention of Corruption for the period 2021 – 2030”, which set strategic goals in the

field of the fight against corruption for this period. One of the 95 measures elaborated in the

Action Plans specifically referred to “Further strengthening of the framework for prevention