Member States' obligations resulting from wasteful spending funds in the implementation of projects co-financed by EU funds in the light of the EU law. Searching for a common standard for management and control systems


  • Magdalena Porzeżyńska University of Warsaw, Faculty of Law and Administration



EU projects, EU funds, management and control system, fraud, irregularity, cohesion policy


This study aims to verify whether despite the generally formulated obligations in EU law intended to ensure that European funds are spent correctly, it is possible to clearly identify the scope of these obligations, and at the same time specify the standard recommended by the EU for national management and control systems. Author primarily uses the formal-dogmatic method to analyze the relevant EU law, the decision-making practice of the European bodies involved in the protection of EU financial interests, the Court’s case-law and the legal doctrine. Due to the lack of clearly recommended model at EU level while generally formulated conditions (especially those resulting from the Charter of Fundamental Rights) that need to be considered by Member States when designing their management and control systems, it is difficult to ensure that the systems are effective which is crucial for guarantee the protection of EU financial interests. The analysis showed that the problem starts at the source as the implementation of both fraud and irregularity concepts varies across Member States which significantly hinders their correct identification. To assist Member States in implementation of management and control systems, the respective guidelines adopted at EU level summarizing the key requirements applicable to national authorities involved in distribution of EU funds are worth considering.


Download data is not yet available.

Author Biography

  • Magdalena Porzeżyńska, University of Warsaw, Faculty of Law and Administration


Baun, M., & Dan, M. (Eds.) (2014). Cohesion policy in the European Union. Houndmills–Basingstoke–Hampshire–New York.

Bobek, M. (2011). Why There Is No Principle of “Procedural Autonomy” of the Member States. In B. de Witte & H. Micklitz (Eds), The European Court of Justice and the Autonomy of the Member States. Intersentia.

Borys, K. et al. (2023). Art. 6 In R. Poździk & M. Perkowski (Eds), Ustawa o zasadach realizacji zadań finansowanych ze środków europejskich w perspektywie finansowej 2021-27. Komentarz. Wolters Kluwer.

Commission (2022a). Statistical evaluation of irregularities reported for 2021: own resources, agriculture, cohesion and fisheries policies, pre-accession and direct expenditure accompanying the document Commission report to the Council and the European Parliament 33rd Annual Report on the protection of the European Union's financial interests and the fight against fraud – 2021, SWD (2022) 307 final.

Commission (2022b). Second report on the implementation of Directive (EU) 2017/1371 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 July 2017 on the fight against fraud to the Union's financial interests by means of criminal law. COM (2022) 433 final.

European Court of Auditors (2019). Special Report - Fighting fraud in EU spending: Action needed, (access date: 10.03.2023).

Halberstam, D. (2021). Understanding National Remedies and the Principle of National Procedural Autonomy: A Constitutional Approach, Cambridge Yearbook of European Legal Studies, 23, pp. 128-158.

Inghelram, J. (2008). Budget and finances. In P.J.G. Kapteyn et al. (Eds.), The Law of the European Union and the European Communities: with Reference to Changes to be Made by the Lisbon Treaty. Wolters Kluwer.

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) (2016). Judeţul Neamţ and Judeţul Bacău v. Ministerul Dezvoltării Regionale și Administrației Publice C-260/14 and C-261/14, ECLI:EU:C:2016:360.

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) (1999). Nunes and de Matos C-186/98, ECLI:EU:C:1999:376.

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) (2014). Liivimaa Lihaveis MTÜ v. Eesti-Läti programmi 2007–2013 Seirekomitee, C-562/12, ECLI:EU:C:2014:2229,.

Judgment of the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber) (2000). Council of European Municipalities and Regions v. Commission T-105/99, ECLI:EU:T:2000:306.

Judgment of the Court (1990). Anklagemyndigheden v Hansen & Søn Case C-326/88, ECR I-2911.

Judgment of the Court (1976). Comet BV v Produktschap voor Siergewassen 45/76, ECR 2043.

Judgment of the Court (1989). Commission v GreeceC-68/88, ECR 2965,.

Judgment of the Court (1976). Rewe-Zentralfinanz eG and Rewe-Zentral AG v. Landwirtschaftskammer für das Saarland 33/76, ECR 1989.

Judgment of the Polish Constitutional Tribunal (2011). P 1/11, Journal of Laws No. 279, item 1644.

Judgment of the Polish Constitutional Tribunal (2012). SK 8/12, item 1237.

Kennedy, T. (2018). The Court of Auditors. In R. Schütze & T. Takis (Eds.), Oxford Principles Of European Union Law: The European Union Legal Order: Volume I. Oxford University Press.

Łacny, J. (2012). Art. 325. In A. Wróbel et al. (Eds.), Traktat o funkcjonowaniu Unii Europejskiej. Komentarz, vol. III: Art. 223-358, LEX.

Łacny, J. (2015). Ochrona praw podstawowych w wydatkowaniu funduszy Unii Europejskiej. Państwo i Prawo, 12, 25-45.

Łacny, J. (2017a). Skutki nieprawidłowego wydatkowania funduszy UE w świetle prawa UE i orzecznictwa sądów UE, cz. I. Temidium, 3.

Łacny, J. (2017b). Korekty finansowe nakładane przez Komisję Europejską na państwa członkowskie za niezgodne z prawem wydatkowanie funduszy Unii Europejskiej. Wolters Kluwer.

Łacny, J. (2022). Przedawnienie nieprawidłowości w wydatkowaniu funduszy Unii Europejskiej w świetle prawa Unii Europejskiej i orzecznictwa Trybunału Sprawiedliwości. Temidium, 2.

Ministry of Development Funds and Regional Policy (2022), Summing up 2022: more than EUR 76 billion from the cohesion policy, approval of programmes by the EC and disbursement of advances [online]. Access at: (30.03.2023)

Molle, W. (2007). European Cohesion Policy, Routledge.

OLAF (2022). The OLAF report 2021. Twenty-second report of the European Anti-Fraud Office 1 January to 31 December 2021. Publications Office of the European Union.

Perkowski, M., & Martyniuk, M. (2017). Niedoskonała procedura odwoławcza w systemie w systemie realizacji unijnej polityki spójności w Polsce. Ocena wykonania wyroku Trybunału Konstytucyjnego z dnia 12 grudnia 2011 r. (sygn. akt P 1/11). Zeszyty Naukowe Sądownictwa Administracyjnego, 3.

Poździk, R. (2013). Ocena i wybór projektów do dofinansowania z Europejskiego Funduszu Rozwoju Regionalnego, Europejskiego Funduszu Społecznego i Funduszu Spójności. Wolters Kluwer.

Poździk, R. (2023). Art. 2. In R. Poździk & M. Perkowski (Eds.). Ustawa o zasadach realizacji zadań finansowanych ze środków europejskich w perspektywie finansowej 2021-27. Komentarz. Wolters Kluwer.

Poździk, R (2012). Obowiązek zwrotu pomocy z funduszy strukturalnych i Funduszu Spójności przez państwo członkowskie, Europejski Przegląd Sądowy, 2.

Poździk, R. (2012). Zasady wdrażania funduszy unijnych w latach 2014–2020, Europejski Przegląd Sądowy, 12.

Swart, B. (1996). From Rome to Maastricht and Beyond: The Problem of Enforcing Community Law. In C. Harding (Eds.), Enforcing European Community Rules. Criminal Proceedings, Administrative Procedures and Harmonization. Darthmouth.







How to Cite

Member States’ obligations resulting from wasteful spending funds in the implementation of projects co-financed by EU funds in the light of the EU law. Searching for a common standard for management and control systems. (2023). Eastern European Journal of Transnational Relations, 7(1), 63-73.