Análisis de las encuestas socioeconómicas a estudiantes de la

corrections. The table established by the Court (see Table 2.3) is therefore in itself not enough to judge the level of the proposed financial corrections. The guidelines for the calculation of financial corrections are laid down in working document VI/5330/97, which needs to be taken into consid- eration in its entirety. Likewise under the heading ‘Further consideration of the real financial losses’ (page 13 of the guidelines), it is explained that the correction resulting from

(32_{) Commission Decision 2000/216/EC of 1 March 2000}

(OJ L 67, 15.3.2000, p. 37) and Commission Decision 2000/449/EC of 5 July2000 (OJ L 180, 19.7.2000, p. 49). (33_{) Commission Decision 2001/474/EC of 8 May2001}

deadlines specified in the regulations, advance pay- ments not followed bysettlements, overclaims, failure to respect ceilings, etc. Flat-rate corrections applyto more general systems weaknesses that cannot be pre- ciselyquantified and are thus more controversial and are often contested during conciliation. In several cases the Court does not agree with the level of flat-rate cor- rection applied. The following paragraphs explain why. 2.56. Table 2.4shows the distribution of expenditure excluded from Communityfinancing per financial year. In 2000, a total amount of 579,7 million euro (229,2 + 350,5 million euro, fourth and fifth conformitydeci- sions respectively) was excluded, mainly for the finan- cial years 1996 to 1998. The corrections principally cover arable crops, animal premiums and the qualityof physicalchecksofproductsqualifyingforexportrefunds. 2.57. It is still too earlyto compare the financial years 1996 to 1998 with the period preceding the reform of the clearance of accounts procedure, as the Commis- sion has taken further decisions in 2001 affecting the financial years concerned.

Weaknesses in the procedure

Delays in notification of findings

2.58. The Court has previouslynoted delays in the Commission’s issue of mission reports and notification

the application of the criteria as summarised by the Court in table 2.3 should, like other criteria, be examined in the light of other information. It also expressly mentions the opportun- ity of the Member State, through additional verifications or additional information, to demonstrate that the deficiency was not as serious as it appeared. Hence, those elements need to be taken into account by the Court when assessing the finan- cial corrections made by the Commission.

Table 2.3 — Corrections: use of flat rates(1₎

Criteria for a financial correction Significant weaknesses in the application of EC regulations which implya real risk of financial loss for the EAGGF.

Use of 2 % flat rate Keycontrols are satisfactorybut secondarycontrols are partlyor totallyineffective. Use of 5 % flat rate Not all the keycontrols are executed in the number, frequencyand with the rigour required

bythe regulations. Therefore, the risk of loss for the Fund is significant.

Use of 10 % flat rate One or more keycontrols do not operate and it is thus not possible to determine the eligibilityof a claim and its regularity. Therefore, the risk of loss for the Fund is high. Use of 25 % flat rate There is no system of controls for a measure, in a Member State or one of its regions, and

there are signs of frequent irregularities and frauds. There is a risk of high losses to the Fund.

Use of higher flat rates If the weaknesses are such that most of the payments are irregular. (1_{) Commission document VI/5330/97.}

(Mio EUR)

Amounts 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000

Financial decisions

Expenses declared (including B1-3 7 0) 39 062,5 40 884,3 38 857,4 40 726,2 40 410,6

Expenses initiallydisjoined (1_{) 25 986,7 107,8 2 453,5 — 7 489,7}

Expenses cleared 39 062,5 40 884,3 38 857,4 40 726,2 32 920,9

Corrections in the first financial decision 1,1 – 1,0 0,9 1,6 3,2

Corrections in the second financial decision 9,9 – 0,1 2,6 —

Total amount of corrections in the financial decisions 11,0 – 1,1 3,5 1,6 3,2

Conformity decisions Total

Taken in 1999

First conformitydecision, 1999/186/CE 82,5 7,1 0,0 0,0 0,0 89,6

Second conformitydecision, 1999/351/CE 12,7 17,4 2,6 0,0 0,0 32,7

Third conformitydecision, 1999/603/CE 68,8 33,1 0,0 0,0 0,0 101,9

Taken in 2000

Fourth conformitydecision, 2000/216/CE (2_{) 81,2 83,9 64,1 0,0 0,0 229,2}

Fifth conformitydecision, 2000/449/CE (3_{) 143,1 105,6 80,4 0,7 20,7 350,5}

Total amount of corrections in the conformity

decisions 388,3 247,1 147,1 0,7 20,7

Total amount of corrections(4_{) 399,3 246,0 150,6 2,3 23,9}

Corrections for late payments 25,2 27,2 15,6 0,0 0,0

Milk super levies 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0

Total amount of corrections net of late payments and

milk super levies 374,1 218,8 135,0 2,3 23,9

Percentage of corrections in the expenses cleared 1,0 % 0,5 % 0,3 % 0,0 % 0,1 %

(1_{) From 1996 to 1998, theycorrespond to the expenses of paying agencies whose accounts could not be cleared in the first instance after the conclusion of the} certification report or due to the insufficient work of the certification body.

These expenses were later cleared, during a second financial decision, after more work was done on paying agencies’ accounts. In 2000, theycorrespond to the expenses of paying agencies which did not provide Table of X in due time.

(2_{) Corrections made for export refunds have been split between EAGGF years 1996 to 1998 bydividing them by3 as there was no detail in the Commission’s} summaryreport.

(3_{) The correction of 20,7 Mio EUR for 2000 is related to a case of fraud in export refunds in France for EAGGF years 1988 to 1990.} (4_{) From 1996 on, this total is still provisional, there are still conformitydecisions to be taken.}

NB: — The amounts in italic are still provisional.

letters (34_{). A similar situation has also been found in}

respect of this year’s conformity decisions, for example concerning meat in Germanyand France. In the light of the ‘24-month rule’ (35_{), it is important that the notifica-}

tion of findings is sent to the Member States in a timely manner.

Member State failure to provide data

2.59. Once again (36_{) Spain has not supplied the Com-}

mission with financial and statistical information (IACS inspections). The results of the IACS on-the-spot inspec- tions, coupled with independent confirmation bythe certifying body that the inspections have been correctly executed, constitute an essential element in providing assurance that IACS is being properlyimplemented. Failure to supplythis information is thus a veryserious matter, and undermines confidence in the operation of the system. The Commission should therefore consider making it obligatorythat the requested statistical infor- mation be provided to and be systematically verified by the certifying body (37_).

Individual corrections

Export refunds

2.60. In 1996 and 1997 the Commission conducted an enquiryinto the qualityof physical checks on exports attracting refunds. These physical checks, which should be carried out without prior warning (38_{), constitute key}

2.59. The Commission must emphasise that it also regrets