Member States’ Replies
| Year | 2021 |
39
3. MEMBER STATES’ REPLIES
1.7. Belgium
Q.1. For the Member States not having joined the EPPO yet. Are there plans to join the
EPPO in the short-medium term?
Belgium is not directly concerned by this issue as it has joined the EPPO. Coordination
between EPPO and AFCOS has been initiated. The Belgian Delegated Prosecutors and the
Belgian Prosecutor participated in an AFCOS meeting in 2021.
Q.2 Have you adopted a national anti-fraud strategy?
☒NO (AFCOS BE)
Has the NAFS been recently updated?
☒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 AFCOS is currently being restructured in order, in particular, to allow the exchange of
information between the different national and regional authorities for establishing a
national anti-fraud strategy. In the meantime, the anti-fraud strategy is based on strategies
developed by the competent authorities that manage the funds at the regional level (ESF,
ERDF, etc.) and the strategy implemented by Customs.
Q.3 Have you assessed the risks and shortcomings of the national customs control
strategies revealed through the Covid-19 pandemic and reported lessons-learned and
remedial measures taken in order to a) improve flexibility for the type of custom
checks; b) diminish the potential impact of unexpected future events; and c) ensure the
implementation uniform controls within the EU?
☒YES, partly implementing the recommendation FPS Finance (Customs and Excise)
If you implemented partially the recommendation, could you please explain why you
think it was a partial implementation and why a full implementation was not possible?
Can you indicate at what stage you are currently in the implementation of this
recommendation? Can you specify any outcomes of measures adopted so far? Can you
indicate any future measures you will implement to achieve full implementation?
FPS Finance (Customs and Excise)
Risk management:
Since the control capacity was limited, we worked on the basis of priority areas.
In certain regions, the control capacity was mostly deployed to check face masks and other
COVID related items.
During the pandemic, there was more capacity to perform documentary checks (owing to
increased telework during the pandemic), however, for certain risks/fraud mechanisms a
physical control is necessary; so changing the type of control was not always permitted.
Ultimately, a greater than usual number of selections could not be checked. See Question 4
also on this point.
40
Q.4 Have you assessed the financial risks that might not have been sufficiently
addressed during 2020 and have you established catch-up plans for carrying out
appropriate customs checks where due to confinement measures such customs checks
had to be cancelled or postponed e.g. checks at operators’ premises and physical checks
before releasing goods into free circulation?
☒YES, partly implementing the recommendation FPS Finance (Customs and Excise)
If you implemented partially the recommendation, could you please explain why you
think it was a partial implementation and why a full implementation was not possible?
Can you indicate at what stage you currently are in the implementation of this
recommendation?
FPS Finance (Customs and Excise)
Risk management:
Since for selections that could not be checked, there were declarations with a significant
potential financial impact, it was decided to analyse these further and subject the most high-
risk ones to second-line control (post-release, ex post check). It was not possible to record all
the selected but not checked declarations in the ex post check range due to the limited
second-line (post release) capacity.
Operations:
During the crisis, the General Customs and Excise Administration was considered an
essential service by the Government. Consequently, it was possible to continue to perform
essential checks, albeit with a few operational adjustments such as working in ‘bubbles’ or
carrying out on-site company audits that were strictly necessary.
Q.5 Have you launched targeted risk management exercises linked to the impact of
Covid-19 and the upcoming implementation of the Recovery and Resilience Facility?
☒YES, fully implementing the recommendation (ERDF Brussels Capital Region)
☒YES, partly implementing the recommendation (ERDF Wallonia)
If you implemented fully the recommendation, can you please describe what type of
exercises have you launched? Can you share any specific findings of such exercises?
Brussels Capital Region ERDF
The ERDF Programme Management Authority of the Brussels Capital Region has set up a
targeted risk management exercise regarding the implementation of the RFF (Recovery and
Resilience Facility).
The ERDF Programme Management Authority of the Brussels Capital Region has set up a
system to detect, prevent and punish serious irregularities (fraud, corruption and conflicts of
interests) among the projects selected. This system is detailed, among others, in a handbook
validated by the Brussels Government and communicated to each project owner.
The content of this handbook was explained to project owners at several joint briefings.
We were later able to have at least one individual steering committee with each project
owner, during which we set out in detail the specifics their project presented in terms of
irregularities (fraud, corruption and conflicts of interests).
A project fiche was drawn up for each project and communicated to the respective SPOCS.
The fiche contained all the information that the project owners would need to communicate to
41
us either once or on a regular basis in order to demonstrate to us that there were no
irregularities. The information to be communicated to us regarded the following points in
particular:
For projects where the object was to award grants, the project owner would submit a
note detailing the eligibility conditions for the grants and the procedures and controls
making it possible to demonstrate there was no fraud, corruption or embezzlement;
Communicating the list of public procurement contracts considered (or already
awarded) during the whole project, both in terms of the project owner and the
subsidised contracting authorities if applicable (beneficiaries). The note must also
detail the estimated budget and how it will be spent (public procurement, subsidies,
operating costs, etc.) and distributed where applicable between the project owner and
other beneficiaries;
Projects where grants or subsidies are to be awarded to third parties must provide all
the information and documents to make it possible to demonstrate that the final
beneficiaries were chosen in full compliance, on the basis of objective, clear and
transparent criteria, and in order to guarantee that there is no fraud, corruption or
conflicts of interests;
Communication of a note detailing the internal mechanisms that will enable it to
detect, prevent, and if necessary, punish cases of fraud, conflicts of interests and
corruption. The note must include four key elements, i.e. prevention, detection,
correction and prosecution;
Communication of a list identifying all staff members and any consultants working on
the project. This list will be used to check that there are no conflict of interests and
will be updated if necessary for the half-yearly reports;
Each half-yearly report will be accompanied by a sworn statement that there is no
conflict of interests, fraud or corruption;
‘In accordance with Article 22(2)(d) of the Regulation, project owners undertake to
collect the following standardised data and to provide access to them:
i) name of the final recipient of funds;
ii) name of the contractor and sub-contractor, where the final recipient of the funds
is a contracting authority in accordance with Union or national law on public
procurement;
iii) first name(s), last name(s) and date of birth of beneficial owner(s) of the
(EU) 2015/849 of the European Parliament and of the Council’
Since the first payment request under the RRF is scheduled for the first semester of 2022, the
ERDF Programme Management Authority of the Brussels Capital Region will collect the
information requested at the beginning of 2022 and will then analyse it.
If you implemented partially the recommendation, could you please explain why you
think it was a partial implementation and why a full implementation was not possible?
The main Covid-related risks are covered by the current control system insofar as Wallonia
controls 100% of ERDF expenditure with the same (high) level of requirement.
All public contracts with an estimated value of over €30,000 and all changes to contracts
after award are subject to a legality control. The tender FEDER Wallonia specifications and
the award decisions are part of this control. In the same way, the possible use of a simplified
To continue reading
Request your trial