Skip to content
  • «
  • 1
  • »

The search returned 3 results.

How to Deal with Legal Uncertainty: Managing and Audit Authorities in Cohesion Policy journal article open-access

Lysette Meuleman, Alex Brenninkmeijer

European Structural and Investment Funds Journal, Volume 5 (2017), Issue 2, Page 161 - 173

Cohesion policy (ERDF, ESF and CF) is implemented in a system of shared management. Signals received from some EU countries indicate that legal uncertainty is created for beneficiaries of cohesion policy funds due to differences in interpretation of, mostly national, regulation. This is a problem because the prospect of legal uncertainty, with the consequence of returning paid subsidies, and the audit burden associated with European funding, may deter organizations from applying for funds. This paper tries to gain a first insight in how this legal uncertainty is created and whether these differences in interpretation are found across the EU. This study focuses on the relationship and communication between the management and audit authorities and the effect of this dialogue on legal certainty and the way audit is carried out under a shared management system. We touch upon the fear of audits, fear because professionals feel they are under constant challenge of being undermined in the future.

Reconciling Smart Specialisation Strategies with State aid – Not an Impossible Mission journal article

Péter Staviczky, Fatime Barbara Hegyi

European Structural and Investment Funds Journal, Volume 5 (2017), Issue 4, Page 264 - 276

This article highlights the relevance of State aid law both for policy makers and aid grantors when implementing smart specialisation strategies (S3). Smart specialisation involves member states or regions focussing their investments related to research and innovation on areas that will exploit emerging opportunities and market developments in a coherent manner, while State aid law contributes to the effective implementation of policies, controls the spending of public funds and prevents subsidy races between Member States, thereby enabling to the maintenance of effective competition on the internal market. The article aims to contribute to the cross-policy approach necessary for the efficient use of European Structural and Investment Funds. It also shows that complying with State aid law can be done with less administrative burden than in the previous programming period, however planning is needed to ensure compliance and to minimise risk of breaching the requirements. Thus, the right approach to State aid law is the early recognition of situations where State aid may be present and making the necessary steps to avoid the risk of repayment to the grantor (recovery).

Lessons Learnt from the Closure of the 2007-13 Programming Period journal article

Martin Ferry, Stefan Kah

European Structural and Investment Funds Journal, Volume 5 (2017), Issue 4, Page 287 - 298

This article is based on a study for the Committee on Regional Development of the European Parliament. It analyses the closure process for programmes funded under the European Regional Development Fund and the Cohesion Fund in 2007-13. Programme closure is often seen as a purely technical process. It involves shutting down the operation of a programme, finalising the reporting and recording of results, and ensuring sound financial management. However, closure also plays an important strategic role. Key decisions are taken by programme authorities at this stage: in the allocation of remaining funds; in securing and raising awareness of achievements and legacies; and, in ensuring a smooth transition to the next programming period. These decisions are taken in the context of considerable pressures: to absorb the maximum funding available; to respond to financial controls and audits that often take place around programme closure; to deal with issues arising from the implementation of specific projects; and, to ensure administrative resources are available at a time of transition between programme periods. Based on a review of academic and evaluation evidence, recent research, legislation, EC and Member State policy papers as well as evidence from EU, national and sub-national stakeholders, this article details the regulatory provisions, guidance and support provided for closure in 2007-13, and assesses the issues faced and responses made by programme authorities, summarised under three headings: absorption, types of intervention and administrative capacity.

  • «
  • 1
  • »