In accordance with the petition for aids of the funds of the European Union an ordinance Nr. 272/2014 has been issued by the Hungarian government for the period between 2014 and 2020 which regulates the procedure of the payment of the aids of the European Union. We would like to highlight the most important characteristics of this procedure in our article. The companies are entitled to submit a petition for the aids in relation to the following funds of the European Union: European Regional Development Fund, European Social Fund, Cohesion Fund, European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development, European Maritime and Fisheries Fund, European Network Financial Fund, Youth Employment Affairs, Fund for European Aid to the Most Deprived.
News & Legal Updates
Beneficiaries of EU funds have encountered unpleasant surprises from the European Commission. Many of them have been accused of creating artificial conditions to receive funding, paradoxically by the same authority who previously approved their projects and payments on the basis of a serious documentation and after many checks. The accusation was accompanied by the issuance of the finding minutes of irregularities and establishing budgetary claims, through which the financing contracts were cancelled and the EU funds received became directly, from non-refundable, budgetary claims subjected to forced execution in case of nonpayment within the term of approximately 30 days, term given by the contracting authority.
Despite the noble idea, which stands behind whistleblowing, in Bulgaria, and most likely in many of the former Eastern European countries, whistle blowers are not referred to as role models and a champions for a better society, but rather as snitches and informants. Given the lack of explicit legislation, the private sector is generally free to introduce such systems in a manner and form as each company sees fit. Although as mentioned above the whistle blowing procedures and systems implemented by the companies do not encourage anonymous reports as well. Furthermore, the absence of effective legislation means that any whistleblower can effectively be threatened led by legal action on claims of defamation.