DG EMPL audit accuses the Polish Foundation for Science of procurement irregularities

3.4.2014

Question for written answer E-004204-14
to the Commission
Rule 117
Arkadiusz Tomasz Bratkowski (PPE) , Jarosław Kalinowski (PPE) , Jarosław Leszek Wałęsa (PPE) , Danuta Jazłowiecka (PPE) , Zbigniew Zaleski (PPE) , Jerzy Buzek (PPE) , Jan Kozłowski (PPE) , Jacek Protasiewicz (PPE) , Andrzej Grzyb (PPE) , Jacek Saryusz-Wolski (PPE) , Jolanta Emilia Hibner (PPE)

The Polish Foundation for Science (FNP) is independent, both financially and in terms of its organisation, from public finance bodies. Despite this, however, in an audit (2007PL051PO001) carried out in 2013 by DG EMPL on the Human Capital operational programme, as part of which the FNP has been involved in a project since 2011, the FNP was accused of failing to apply public procurement legislation. The findings of EMPL’s audit call into question those of previous audits carried out by national and EU audit bodies. Poland’s national audit authority, the Office of Fiscal Control (UKS), audited another FNP project using ERDF funding and asserted that the FNP was not one of the bodies covered by the obligation to apply the legislation. This was not called into question by the Commission’s auditors in 2010, who levelled no accusations against the FNP (2009/PL/REGION/J4/804/7).

Why is the Commission exposing such a reputable organisation to legal uncertainty, and possibly to the risk of financial consequences, when there are convincing legal arguments that establish that the FNP is not obliged to apply public procurement legislation?

Are the legal arguments used by the Commission informed by facts that are, in a subjective or objective way, identical or similar to the facts in the case relating to the status and activities of the FNP? Are these arguments sufficiently grounded in ECJ case-law?

Is the Commission aware of other cases in which an obligation to apply public procurement legislation has been imposed on a private entity promoting scientific research that is not listed in Annex III to Directive 2004/18/EC?

When carrying out the audit, did the Commission exercise due diligence with regard to checking the experience of external staff employed to carry out the audit?

OJ C 375, 22/10/2014