Commission Staff Working Document: Early Detection and Exclusion System (EDES) - Panel referred to in Article 108 of the Financial Regulation, accompanying the document "Report from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council: Protection of the European Union's financial interests - Fight against fraud 2016 Annual Report"

Council of the European Union

Brussels, 25 July 2017 (OR. en)

11503/17 ADD 4

GAF 40 FIN 496

COVER NOTE

From: Secretary-General of the European Commission, signed by Mr Jordi AYET PUIGARNAU, Director

date of receipt: 24 July 2017

To: Mr Jeppe TRANHOLM-MIKKELSEN, Secretary-General of the Council of the European Union

No. Cion doc.: SWD(2017) 268 final

Subject: Commission Staff Working Document: Early Detection and Exclusion

System (EDES) - Panel referred to in Article 108 of the Financial Regulation, accompanying the document "Report from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council: Protection of the European Union's financial interests - Fight against fraud 2016 Annual Report"

Delegations will find attached document SWD(2017) 268 final.

Encl.: SWD(2017) 268 final

EUROPEAN COMMISSION

Brussels, 20.7.2017 SWD(2017) 268 final

COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT

Early Detection and Exclusion System (EDES) - Panel referred to in Article 108 of the

Financial Regulation

Accompanying the document

REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND

THE COUNCIL

Protection of the European Union's financial interests - Fight against fraud 2016 Annual Report

{COM(2017) 383 final i} {SWD(2017) 266 final} {SWD(2017) 267 final} {SWD(2017) 269 final} {SWD(2017) 270 final} Table of Contents

• 1. 

  INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................... 2

• 2. 

  THE PANEL ............................................................................................................... 2

2.1. The Composition of the Panel ........................................................................... 2

2.2. ROLE OF THE PANEL .................................................................................... 3

2.3. THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE PANEL ............................................... 5

• 3. 

  THE PUBLICATION OF SANCTIONS IMPOSED ON ECONOMIC

OPERATORS .............................................................................................................. 6

• 4. 

  OVERVIEW OF CASES ............................................................................................ 7 1. INTRODUCTION

From 2004 to 2015, the Commission ran an internal early warning system and an exclusion database in order to protect the Union's financial interests. The aim of the system was to warn about potentially unreliable economic operators and to prevent them from obtaining future EU financing by excluding them or imposing a financial penalty on them. The internal early warning system only covered the Commission and its executive

agencies. In its judgment in the Planet case 1 the General Court considered that the early

warning system was not purely internal since it affected the rights of the economic

operators concerned and that it did not properly ensure the operator's right to be heard 2 .

The Commission seized the opportunity of this judgment to propose a substantial revision of the system not only in order to fully ensure the respect of the fundamental rights of the economic operators concerned but also to improve the system in terms of

centralised assessment of cases, independence and transparency 3 . As a result a new

single Early Detection and Exclusion System (EDES) was put in place as part of the 2015

revision of the Financial Regulation 4 . Articles 105a to 108 provide for rules that

centralise the exclusion process for all institutions, EU offices, agencies and bodies. In particular, Article 108(7) establishes a Panel presided over by a standing high-level independent Chair whose role is to issue recommendations on administrative sanctions, i.e. exclusion and/or financial penalties and, where applicable, the publication thereof.

These recommendations are addressed to the authorising officers of EU institutions, EU offices, agencies and bodies which remain sole competent to take the decision to exclude an economic operator and/or to impose a financial penalty on it.

2016 constitutes the first year of application of this new system, the “EDES” that entered into application on 1 January 2016: the Panel was established and its Chair and Deputy

Chair were selected and appointed by the Commission. In parallel, a new IT tool, the EDES Database, was set up. It lists all cases of early detection of risks threatening the

EU's financial interests, exclusion of and imposition of financial penalties on unreliable economic operators and is also operational since 1 January 2016. The Commission also launched a public webpage on the Europa website, which lists the most serious cases sanctioned by exclusion and/or a financial penalty decisions. The purpose of publication is to ensure a deterrent effect in order to better protect the Union's financial interests. The publication is subject to strict conditions, including compliance with the protection of personal data.

• 2. 

  THE PANEL

The coherence of the administrative sanctions (i.e. exclusion and/or financial penalties and, where applicable, the publication thereof) procedure is ensured by the newly established Panel.

2.1. The Composition of the Panel

As laid down in Article 108(7) of the Financial Regulation, the Panel is composed of:

1 C-314/11 P - Commission v Planet.

2 The situation was different for the exclusion part of the system which was already open to other actors of

implementation of the EU budget and ensured the rights of defence.

3 COM(2014) 358 final i of 18.6.2014.

4 Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 2015/1929 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 28 October 2015 (OJ L 286, 30.10.2015, p. 1).

• - 

  a standing high-level independent Chair;

• - 

  two permanent Member representatives of the Commission as the owner of the system, who express a joint position for the cases submitted to the Panel; and

• - 

  one ad-hoc Member representative of the requesting authorising officer.

The Chair of the Panel and his/her Deputy are appointed by the Commission and are

independent in the performance of their mandate 5 . They are chosen from among former

members of the Court of Auditors, the Court of Justice or former officials who have had at least the rank of Director-General in an institution of the Union other than the Commission. Their term of office is five years and is not renewable. The Chair is Mr

Christian Pennera, former Jurisconsult of the European Parliament and his Deputy is Ms María Isabel Rofes i Pujol, former Member of the Civil Service Tribunal of the European

Union.

The two permanent Members of the Panel designated by the Commission are Mr. Hubert Szlaszewski designated ad personam, presently Principal Advisor within the Secretariat

General of the Commission, and Mr. Olivier Waelbroeck, Director of the Central

Financial Service in the Directorate-General for Budget 6 .

For each case, the additional Member representing the requesting authorising officer is designated in accordance with the rules of procedure and the internal administrative rules of the institution, agency, office or body concerned.

The Panel is assisted by observers and in all cases by a representative of the Legal Service of the Commission. In addition, a representative of OLAF participates in the

Panel as observer in the cases referred to the Panel on the basis of an OLAF investigation. This status allows OLAF to present the facts. The active contribution of the

Legal Service of the Commission and of OLAF to the work of the Panel has been a key element in providing the Panel with relevant information and allowing it to deliver high quality recommendations in a timely way.

The Panel is supported by a permanent secretariat provided by the Commission and administratively attached to the Directorate-General for Budget.

2.2. ROLE OF THE PANEL

In the absence of a final national judgment or, where applicable, a final administrative decision, authorising officers who would like to exclude and/or fine an unreliable

economic operator 7 have to first request a recommendation of the Panel. The grounds for

excluding economic operators are the following:

5 Article 144(1) subparagraph 2 of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/2462 of 30 October 2015

amending Delegated Regulation (EU) No 1268/2012 i on the rules of application of Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 966/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council on the financial rules applicable to the general budget of the Union (OJ L 362, 31.12.2012, p. 1).

6 Deputies of the Permanent Members are: Mr. Olivier Dandoy designated ad personam from the

Secretariat General of the Commission and Ms. Victoria Gil Casado from the Central Financial Service in the Directorate-General for Budget.

7 'Economic operator' means any natural or legal person, including a public entity, or a group of such persons, which applies for EU and/or EDF funds or has already received such funds.

• - 

  grave professional misconduct resulting from the violation of applicable laws or regulations or ethical standards of the profession to which the economic operator concerned belongs, or from the engagement in any wrongful conduct which has an impact on the professional credibility where such conduct denotes wrongful intent or gross negligence;

• - 

  fraud, corruption, participation in a criminal organisation, money laundering or terrorist financing, terrorist-related offences or offences linked to terrorist activities, and child labour or other forms of trafficking in human beings;

• - 

  significant deficiencies in complying with main obligations in the performance of a contract financed by the budget ('serious breach of obligations'), which has led to its early termination or to the application of liquidated damages or other contractual penalties, or which has been discovered following checks, audits or investigations by an authorising officer, OLAF or the Court of Auditors;

• - 

  irregularity within the meaning of Article 1(2) of Council Regulation (EC,

  Euratom) No 2988/95 8 .

In general, each case is examined twice by the Panel in two succeeding meetings. In a first session, the Panel examines the facts and findings and their preliminary qualification in law. It ensures the right to be heard by sending a letter to the economic operator in which the latter is requested to submit written observations. In a second session, the

Panel examines the written observations, if any, and adopts its recommendation which is addressed to the requesting authorising officer.

The Panel must adopt this recommendation within 45 calendar days from the referral of the case to the Panel. This deadline starts once the request for referral of a case is complete. Pursuant to the Financial Regulation, the economic operator should at least be granted 15 calendar days, i.e. 10 working days at the most, to present its observations. In practice, despite the tight constraint of the short deadline of 45 calendar days, the Panel grants more time to the economic operator, i.e. at least 11 or 12 working days.

The recommendation of the Panel includes a preliminary classification in law of the conduct referred to above, with regard to established facts or other findings. It is important to recall that the Panel has no investigative powers. It will therefore principally rely on:

• a) 

  facts established in the context of audits or investigations carried out by the Court of Auditors, OLAF or internal audit, or any other check, audit or control performed under the responsibility of the authorising officer;

• b) 

  non-final administrative decisions which may include disciplinary measures taken by the competent supervisory body responsible for the verification of the application of standards of professional ethics;

8 Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2988/95 of 18 December 1995 on the protection of the European Communities financial interests (OJ L 312, 23.12.1995, p. 1) which defines irregularity as: "any infringement of a provision of Community law resulting from an act or omission by an economic operator, which has, or would have, the effect of prejudicing the general budget of the Communities or budgets managed by them, either by reducing or losing revenue accruing from own resources collected directly on behalf of the Communities, or by an unjustified item of expenditure."

• c) 

  decisions of the European Central Bank, the European Investment Bank, the European Investment Fund or international organisations;

• d) 

  decisions of the Commission relating to the infringement of the Union's competition rules or of a national competent authority relating to the infringement of Union or national competition law.

Where the Panel considers that the economic operator concerned should be excluded and/or that a financial penalty should be imposed on it, its recommendation contains the facts or findings and their preliminary classification in law as well as one or several of

the following elements:

• a) 

  an assessment of the need to impose a financial penalty and its amount;

• b) 

  an assessment of the need to exclude the economic operator concerned and, in that case, the suggested duration of such an exclusion;

• c) 

  an assessment of the need to publish the information related to the economic operator who is excluded and/or subject to a financial penalty;

• d) 

  an assessment of remedial measures taken by the economic operator, if any;

• e) 

  assessment of the proportionality principle as referred to in Article 106(3) of the

Financial Regulation so as to retain aggravating or mitigating circumstances.

After an assessment of the remedial measures the Panel may decide to recommend not to impose sanctions on the economic operator. The option to take into account remedial measures was introduced in the 2015 revision of the Financial Regulation, based on the

procurement Directives 9 in order to reduce the sanctions imposed on the economic

operator or to avoid its exclusion altogether where the economic operator has taken the necessary corrective measures. For this latter case, the measures listed in Article 106(8) of the Financial Regulation must be sufficient to demonstrate the reliability of the economic operator to receive future Union funds.

2.3. THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE PANEL

In the light of the principle of proportionality enshrined in Articles 49 and 52 of the

Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union 10 and of remedial measures taken

by the economic operator concerned, the Panel can recommend:

• - 

  The exclusion of the economic operator concerned for up to 3 years (up to 5 years in the case of fraud) from participation in all or part of funding procedures, governed by the Union budget in line with the Financial

9 Directive 2014/24 i/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 2014 on public procurement and repealing Directive 2004/18/EC i (OJ L 94, 28.03.2014, p.65) and Directive 2014/23 i/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 2014 on the award of concession contracts (OJ

L 94, 28.03.2014, p.1).

10 See also Recital 28 of Regulation (EU, Euratom) 2015/1929 of the European Union and of the Council of 28 October 2015 amending regulation (EU, Euratom) No 966/2012 on the financial rules applicable to the general budget of the Union, OJ L 286, 30.10.2015, p. 1.

Regulation and award procedures governed by the European Development Funds;

• - 

  The imposition a financial penalty of between 2 % and 10 % of the total value of the contract on an economic operator who has attempted to obtain access to Union funds by participating or requesting to participate in a procurement procedure, without having declared it in one of the following exclusion situations;

  (ii) as an alternative to a decision to exclude the economic operator, where such an exclusion would be disproportionate;

  (iii) in addition to an exclusion which is necessary to protect the Union's financial interests, where the economic operator has adopted a systemic and

  recurrent conduct with the intention of unduly obtaining Union funds 11 .

• - 

  In order to reinforce the deterrent effect of the exclusion and/or financial penalty, the publication on the internet site of the Commission information

related to the exclusion and, where applicable, the financial penalty 12 .

Even if they have only a non-binding nature, due to the need to respect the administrative autonomy of the Institutions and other EU bodies, the recommendations of the Panel bear a certain weight due to the composition of the Panel and the recognised authority of its high level independent Chair. This is further evidenced by the fact that the Authorising

Officer who decides not to follow a recommendation of the Panel in a given case must inform the latter of the reasons which have led him/her to take a different decision.

• 3. 

  THE PUBLICATION OF SANCTIONS IMPOSED ON ECONOMIC OPERATORS

The publication of the sanctions is a powerful tool to ensure a deterrent effect and to prevent misuse of EU funds. The first publication of information related to sanctions took place on 24 November 2016.

The recommendation to publish must comply with the protection of personal data and be necessary to ensure this deterrent effect. Therefore, the publication will only be recommended in serious cases with aggravating factors. In addition, the publication can only intervene three months after the decision is taken by the economic operator, by which time the decision of the authorising officer may be contested before the General

Court. If this is the case then the publication will take place after the judgment of the Court, should the judgment uphold the decision of the Authorising Officer.

11 This possibility is not applicable to cases where the conduct consists of significant deficiencies in

complying with main obligations in the performance of a contract.

12 Information cannot be published in any of the following circumstances:- where it is necessary to preserve the confidentiality of an investigation or of national judicial proceedings;- where publication would cause disproportionate damage to the economic operator concerned or would otherwise be disproportionate on the basis of the proportionality criteria set out and to the amount of the financial penalty;

• - 

  where a natural person is concerned, unless the publication of personal data is exceptionally justified, inter alia, by the seriousness of the conduct or its impact on the Union's financial interests.

• 4. 

  O VERVIEW OF CASES

The Panel started functioning at the beginning of 2016 and issued its first recommendation on 15 March 2016. Pending the appointment of the standing high-level independent Chair and his Deputy by the Commission, it was presided on an interim basis by the permanent Member with the highest seniority. The Chair of the Panel took office once he had been appointed and presided his first meeting on 24 November 2016.

In 2016, 21 cases relating to 33 economic operators were addressed to the Panel through its permanent secretariat by different authorising services, including 14 from the Commission, five from executive agencies, one from an office and one from a decentralised agency.

As of 30 June 2017, the Panel has issued 17 recommendations, three of which were adopted in 2016. In three recommendations, the Panel concluded that no sanctions should be imposed, in the light of the remedial measures taken by the operator. In addition to the cases for which the Panel issued a recommendation, in one case, the facts presented to the Panel were not established. In two others, the authorising officer withdrew the cases.

One case is currently suspended.

In the 13 decisions adopted so far by authorising officers, the recommendations of the Panel have been followed in full and the economic operators have been excluded. In 1 of these cases, a financial penalty was imposed in addition and in 6 of these cases it was decided to publish the sanctions. The publicity was justified by e.g. the refusal of audits or by a misleading depiction of the solvability of the contractor due to the default of its guarantor.

The following table shows an overview of the cases where the Panel issued a recommendation in 2016 and of those cases submitted to the Panel in 2016 and where the recommendation was issued in the first semester of 2017. It contains a summary of facts and findings, their preliminary qualification in law if applicable, the recommended administrative sanction and the date thereof and if a publication on the website of the

Commission was recommended. The cases have been anonymised.

Annex 1

Summary of anonymised cases dealt with by the Panel of Article 108 of the Financial Regulation up

until 30.06.2017

CASE NUMBER FACTS QUALIFICATION IN LAW SANCTIONS PUBLICATION

(exclusion ground)

Case 2016/1 The director of a grant beneficiary "Grave professional Exclusion from specific Not recommended. publicly admitted that he was misconduct" that has an funding programme for

involved in sharing disreputable impact on the integrity and 3 years.

Date of the Panel information on the director of a professional credibility of the recommendation: competitor entity. economic operator.

16.3.2016

Date of the decision of the authorising officer:

23.6.2016

Case 2016/2 The manager of a grant beneficiary "Serious breaches of Exclusion of 3 years. Recommended based misappropriated EU funds; contractual obligations". on refusal of audits.

Date of the Panel Financial penalty of 10 recommendation: In another project, the beneficiary % of the value of one Published on 24 20.4.2016 did not perform any work; of the project. November 2016 on

the internet site of the Commission.

Date of the decision Prevented the auditors to perform a of the authorising financial audit; officer : 19.7.2016

Declared ineligible costs.

Case 2016/3 A patent allegedly owned by the "Misrepresentation in Exclusion for a period Not recommended. economic operator concerned did supplying the information of 3 years.

not exist; required by the authorising officer".

Date of the Panel recommendation:

15.6. 2016 Alleged existence of another linked entity did not exist.

Date of the decision of the authorising officer:

25.10.2016

Case 2016/4 The grant beneficiary received Not applicable, case Not applicable. Case Not applicable (case subsidies based on declaration of withdrawn by authorising closed due to withdrawn).

overestimated unit costs (average v. officer. withdrawal by

Case withdrawn on: actual); authorising officer.

20.12.2016 Application of contractual measures to

Declaration of ineligible costs. protect the EU financial interests so

that there is no outstanding impact on the EU budget (including).

Case 2016/5 Inflation of costs and unreliable "Serious breaches of Exclusion for a period Recommended based recording system of a grant contractual obligations" of 2 years. on the recurrence of beneficiary; the conduct.

Date of the Panel recommendation:

9.1.2017 Undeclared subcontracting; Published on 14/06/2017 on the

internet site of the

Date of the decision Plagiarism. Commission.

of the authorising officer:

6.3.2017

Case 2016/6 As part of a procurement procedure, Not applicable. Case closed: Not applicable (case Not applicable (case the evaluation Committee identified facts and findings not inadmissible due to the inadmissible due to

(up to 9 economic 2 tenders (consortia) with identical established. non-establishment of the non-establishment operators potentially parts in the replies to certain the facts). of the facts). concerned) questions;

Panel reply to the Potential alleged plagiarism made requesting by one of the consortia and/or the

authorising officer companies of this consortium.

on 23.6.2016

Case 2016/7/a Three beneficiaries of grants were "Serious breaches of Recommendation not Not applicable involved in a fraudulent scheme contractual obligations". to exclude by (recommendation not

with an intermediary company, application of remedial to sanction – remedial Case 2016/7/bis while all of them were owned or The legal qualification of measures sufficient to measures).

controlled by the same natural fraud has not been retained ensure the economic

Case 2016/7/ter person. since the competent national operators' liability:

authorities closed the judicial

The mechanism resulted in inflated proceedings. - no financial prejudice

costs claimed in the EU projects.

(3 economic remained due to the operators reimbursement of all

concerned) funds in the perimeter of the established

serious breach of contractual obligations;

Date of the Panel

recommendations: - no use of the

28.2.2017 (a) fraudulent scheme since 2007.

16.3.2017 (bis and ter)

Case 2016/8/a Attempts of 2 economic operators to "Grave professional Exclusion of each of Not recommended. influence the procurement misconduct" the 2 economic

Case 2016/8/bis evaluation procedure. operators for 1 year.

(2 economic operators concerned)

Date of the Panel recommendations (a and bis): 28.3.2017

Date of the decision of the authorising officer (a and bis):

11.04.2017

Case 2016/9 As part of a contract of works, the "Serious breaches of Exclusion of 2 years. Recommended based contractor concerned did not fulfil contractual obligations". on the misleading its obligations in the deadline set depiction of the

Date of the Panel (extended several times), it resulted solvability of the recommendation: in the termination of the contract; contractor due to the

9.1.2017 default of its guarantor.

The contractor submitted a

Date of the decision performance guarantee of a

of the authorising guarantor blacklisted by the central Publication postponed national central bank. The guarantor due to legal action

officer: went bankrupt and the contractor did introduced by the

7.3.2017 not replace the guarantee, despite operator. being required to do so.

Case 2016/10a Submission of report on the "Serious breach of Exclusion for 2 years Recommended for the implementation of the action which obligations" and "grave (1st economic operator) first economic

Case 2016/10bis did not reflect reality (by the 1 st professional misconduct" (1 st operator

economic operator concerned only); economic operator) recommended based on two distinct

(2 economic Non-compliant procurement grounds of exclusion. operators procedure and inflation of staff

concerned) expenses claimed ( by the 1 st "Grave professional economic operator concerned only); misconduct linked to breach

of procurement procedure" Yet to be published on (2 nd economic operator) the internet site.

Date of the Panel recommendations: Submission of fake documents to

auditors (2 nd economic operator

6.2.2017 (a) only). Not recommended for

Exclusion for 1 year the second operator. 24.3.2017 (bis) (2nd economic operator

Date of the decision of the authorising officer:

24/03/2017 (a)

16/05/2017 (bis)

Case 2016/11 Auditors prevented to perform a "Serious breaches of Exclusion for 3 years. Recommended based financial audit; contractual obligations" on:

• - 

  serious breaches of

Date of the Panel contractual recommendation: Non-completion of work to be obligations in two 25.1.2017 performed in the context of a grant distinct grant

agreement and non-participation in agreements

the meetings concerning the supervision, monitoring and - refusal of audit. evaluation of the project.

Date of the decision of the authorising

officer: Yet to be published on

the internet site 05.04.2017

Case 2016/12 "Grave professional State of play on the Not applicable, Irregularity consisted in conclusion misconduct". further implication of awaiting state of play

of a contract with another company the alleged fraudulent of further implication

Reply of the Panel to for assistance in the preparation of a scheme and companies and companies tender and falsification of document. involved to be involved.

the requesting

This company irregularly obtained

authorising officer presented.

on 2.2.2017 the Terms of Reference of the Contract prior publication.

Case 2016/13 Unreliability of the beneficiary's "serious breaches of Exclusion for 2,5 years Not recommended. time recording system, declaration contractual obligations and

of non-incurred costs; grave professional

Date of the Panel misconduct"

recommendation:

24/05/2017 Lack of operational capacity;

Date of the decision Irregular subcontracting; of the authorising officer:

Unjustified payments to a foreign 29/06/2017 bank account of a company led by

the same director.

Case 2016/14 Unreliability of the beneficiary's "serious breaches of Case closed: Company Not applicable, time recording system, lack of contractual obligations" dissolved. company dissolved.

information in timesheets with regard to non-EU projects;

Panel reply:

30.06.2017

Declaration of non-incurred costs;

Identified transactions, with a separate company, to which the operator had transferred a significant part of the pre-financing it had received, raising doubts as to the actual work of the beneficiary in the project.

Case 2016/15 Inaccurate time recording; "serious breaches of Exclusion of 2 years Not recommended. contractual obligations"

Date of the Panel Irregular subcontracting; recommendation:

26/04/2017

Unreliable travel and subsistence costs;

Date of the decision of the authorising

officer: Personal involvement of the

manager 21/06/2017

Case 2016/16 No audit could be performed due to "serious breaches of Exclusion of 2 years Recommended based the absence of reply to letter of contractual obligations" on refusal of audit.

announcement of audit and several

Date of the Panel attempt to reach the operator;

recommendation:

26/04/2017 Contested payment of part of prefinancing

by the grant coordinator; proof of payment was submitted and

Date of the decision no reply was provided.

of the authorising officer:

15/06/2017

Case 2016/19 Unreliable time recording system; "serious breaches of Exclusion of 18 months Not applicable, facts lack of alternative evidence contractual obligations" committed before supporting the claimed personnel publication rules

Date of the Panel costs; entered into force.

recommendation: Non-compliance with the specific

eligibility criteria for in-house 28/06/2016 consultants;

Absence of costs recorded in the contractor's profit and loss statement.

Case 2017/02 Final judgement concerning No preliminary classification: No recommendation. Not applicable. agreement with other operators with the limitation period lapsed.

the aim of distorting competition

Remedial measures.

Case 2017/04 Lack of preventive measures to No preliminary classification. No recommendation. Not applicable (case avoid conflict of interest and late Case withdrawn by withdrawn)

disclosure. Case withdrawn. Authorising Officer

based on further analysis.

Annex 2

Number of Panel cases received 01/01/2016 - 30/06/2017

(accumulated figures) Sanctions recommended by the Panel

01/01/2016 - 30/06/2017

Panel cases classified per category of sources 01/01/2016 - 30/06/2017

Panel cases classified per spending area 01/01/2016 - 30/06/2017