The views expressed in the paper reflect the opinion of the author, which may differ from the position. The only difference between Member States would be the amount of funds available.
Limitations of the analysis
However, the management system must also be rational – it must prevent any abuse without presenting obstacles to an effective expenditure of resources. During the research study, the author interviewed several people involved in the EU funds management process: representatives of the managing authority (Ministry of Finance), the responsible institution (Ministry.
Background information about EU Funds in sectors of education and
Detected problems and probable corruption risks
Insufficient understanding of conflicts of interest
The analysis of statistics on cases of administrative violations collected by the Bureau for Prevention and Combating of Corruption (hereinafter - the CPCB)8 for the period 2007–2009 makes it possible to conclude that cases of administrative violations in relation to conflict of interest has been comparatively initiated. often against representatives of the education system (heads of comprehensive schools, representatives of higher education institutions) and representatives of local government involved in spending EU funds. The CPCB and other institutions should undertake explanatory work and provide training on the regulation of conflicts of interest for individuals involved in the EU fund management system.
Complexity of the procedure and the excessive amount
Sometimes the MIS fails to provide information of the required quality for the process of implementation of EU funds. Chapters of the MIS cannot be used as a tool for monitoring EU funds.
Project application selection and evaluation
However, at the meeting of the Monitoring Committee in March of this year, the Ministry of Finance changed its opinion. Changes in remuneration also stimulate the exit of qualified staff, bringing fluctuations in the level of institutional competence. In specific tenders, submitted project applications are evaluated not only by members of the evaluation committee, but also by invited experts.
However, the respondents had different views on the quality of the work of experts and members of the commission involved in the evaluation. An in-depth investigation should be carried out into the potential links between people involved in the evaluation process and project applicants. Organization of the selection. The question of how to organize the project selection is important from the evaluation point of view.
One of the explanations may be that there is a limited number of potential recipients of the support within the education and science sector.
Involvement of foreign professionals in the evaluation of project
Involvement of foreign professionals in the evaluation of project applications. as collaborators, they had still evaluated projects from other research institutions – their competitors in the given selection, giving rise to doubts about the objectivity of the evaluation process.38. One of the rejected project applicants informed the European Commission and the Ministry of Education and Science about the situation that had arisen.39 In the letter, it was requested not only to assess the specific situation, but also the problem of objectivity in the evaluation of EU funds was generalized, which indicates that foreign professionals should be involved in the evaluation of project applications for EU funds. It would make the procedure fairer, more open and efficient and would promote public confidence in decisions taken by the public administration.
Even now, in many cases, the research part of the project application is submitted in English. The conclusions reached by the CPCB regarding the above situation and the conflict of interest should be viewed critically. 41 The CPCB admitted that no conflict of interest can be detected in the given situation, as neither the evaluators nor their relatives participated in the design of the submitted projects. Thus, it follows from the KPCB's statement that the situation where competing project applications are evaluated by persons closely related to the project applicants is acceptable.
In addition, the CPCB indicated that members of the evaluation committee were not included in lists of government officials.
Lack of argumentation in decisions on the rejection of project
In this case, the Fund Board has not substantiated why the inclusion of the task under the competence of the River Basin Authority in the applicant's project for the amount that represented 0.76% of the project amount ensures that the award of financing for the applicant's project is absolutely inadmissible. Given the fact that the decision lacked extensive reasoning, the court ruled that the decision of the Fund's board was contrary to the principle of the prohibition of arbitrariness, which is a significant procedural violation and gives rise to the decision taken considered illegal by the said institution. The principle of the prohibition of arbitrariness requires that the actions of the state have reasonable substantiation and that everyone can be assured of the existence of this substantiation.
Since the justification of state action is reflected in argumentation, the principle of prohibition of arbitrariness is closely related to the principle of justification. The mentioned principle is included in Article 9. 3/8 "Par Tieslietu ministrijas un Saibedrias integrácijas fonda geštajneto svetto grantu škemi "Pilsoniskás sobieště stiprināšanas tailata programma 2010" of the competition project Nr. Decision of the Riga planning region no. 3/8 of May 10, 2010 "On the results of the project call no. 2010LV for the grant scheme "Civil Society Strengthening Support Program 2010", jointly established by the Ministry of Justice and Social Inclusion Fund" on 4 pages). If the entire reasoning is not included in the decision already at the initial stage, the court will not have a basis for assessing other objections of the institute, which were not included in the decision as its justification.
Decisions on rejection must provide more substantiation, creating a balance between the principle of justification and the principle of economy of public administration resources.
Lack of external control over the project evaluation process
The question of why the project application was rejected has not yet been answered. Even in the above-mentioned case, the court did not find an answer to this question in the decision. The principle of the rule of law and the principle of efficient use of EU funds would be balanced and would benefit more from the imposed restrictions.
It can be envisaged that the administrative court will consider the requests with a shorter notice outside the general procedure. In case of a favorable court decision, the state must reimburse all expenses incurred for the implementation of the project. The Ombudsman's office should participate more actively in monitoring the quality of the management of EU funds.
It is possible to create a special ombudsman to examine disputes and provide an external evaluation and proposals for improving the system.
Expansion of the limits of the accessibility of information
Such a practice would build confidence in the fairness and legitimacy of the process and allow for more effective protection of one's rights and interests in the event of a violation. Failure to fully disclose evaluators limits the ability of project applicants and the rest of society to monitor the evaluation process and detect possible conflicts of interest and possible cases of corruption. After the conclusion of the evaluation process, they should be made public, as the need to protect them from possible pressure no longer exists.
Although currently "there is no obligation to make publicly available the evaluation criteria methodology, in some specific cases it is practiced".49 Such explanations improve the understanding of the criteria and make the evaluation process more predictable. Generalization of the obligation to make the methodology publicly available should be considered. It would be necessary to re-examine the limits of applicability of the restricted access information status to EU funds documents.
Similarly, the extent of accessibility of information on the results of project application selection should be reconsidered.
Inability to fight violations in the procurement procedure
Potential problems and corruption risks are the same regardless of the resources underlying the purchase. The adaptation of the procedure and the minimization of corruption risks in the field of public procurement in general will reduce these risks also in connection with the use of EU funds. Procurement is organized for people who are already known.”53 Often it is related to the usefulness of the formal requirements of public procurement to attract human resources.54.
Tenders are divided into several smaller purchases in order to avoid the application of the tendering procedure applicable to the total contract amount. Contracts with bidders are entered into for other amounts that are higher than the amount specified in the bid and in the procurement commission's decision. Measures that reduce monitoring and control are not allowed.57 In addition, other measures should be taken to reduce the formalism and the nihilistic approach to the organization of the procurement procedure.
In addition, explanations and training should be provided on the organization of procurement as the procurement documentation is currently not of the required quality.
Ineffectiveness of control in project implementation
General conclusions
Potential corruption risks are also generated by the economic crisis and the current reforms in the education system.61 Similarly, the low acquisition rate of EU funds can increase the corruption risk. A series of hasty and ill-considered decisions may be made as the deadline for obtaining EU funds approaches. EU funds have become the core funding for education and science sectors, although essentially they should only be additional funding for the development of specific sectors.
For example, "instead of investing resources of EU funds in the improvement and strengthening of the basic system (the end of the implementation of the Bologna system), resources are channeled to other areas. Payment of scholarships to students on master's studies and Ph. d. studies, however, can only be supported if the basic system is put in order."62 Furthermore, in the event that Latvia ceases to receive support from EU funds, the education and science sectors may face a crisis. 61 During the reform process the description of the management and control system did not correspond or does not always correspond to reality, as institutional and functional changes are or were underway in several institutions. Draft preliminary report to the ESF Committee. http://tiny.cc/am2kz. Georgiev, O. Mayor for EU funds.
Korupcijas novēršanas un apkarošanas birojs. red.).Pārmaiņu sargāšana: pilsoniskā sabiedrība kā ES fondu sargsuņi.
