Povzetek: Prispevek obravnava problematiko razlikovanja upravnih sankcij glede na obliko krivde pri upravljanju skladov EU. Pravna posledica nepravilnosti v okviru skladov EU je praviloma zavrnitev zahtevka oziroma odvzem neupravičeno pridobljene koristi, ki se uporablja tudi pri dejanju goljufije ali namerne nepravilnosti. Pri goljufiji oziroma namerni nepravilnosti takšni sankciji lahko sledijo dodatne upravne kazni. Čeprav navedena ureditev v pravu EU sledi legitimnemu cilju zaščite finančnih interesov EU, ki je sestavni del načela dobrega finančnega poslovodenja, se pri tem postavljajo številna vprašanja z vidika spoštovanja kriterijev gospodarnosti, učinkovitosti, uspešnosti, sorazmernosti administrativnih stroškov in enostavnosti postopkov, zlasti kar zadeva razlikovanje upravnih sankcij glede na različne oblike krivde. S tega vidika je preučena veljavna ureditev in nakazana potencialna rešitev, kako navedeno področje de lege ferenda urediti tako, da se bo upravno oziroma pogodbeno izvajanje skladov EU izboljšalo brez poseganja na področje kazenskopravnega preganjanja nepravilnosti. Pri tem je z vidika dolgotrajnosti postopkov poudarjena tudi dvojna odgovornost držav članic EU, in sicer odškodninska odgovornost v razmerju do upravičencev do sredstev po eni strani in odgovornosti do proračuna EU, izražena v finančnih popravkih, ki jih izvede Komisija, po drugi strani.
Ključne besede: goljufija, naklep, malomarnost, nepravilnost, dokazno pravo, skladi EU
Title: Differentiating Administrative Sanctions According to Fault in Management of EU Funds
Abstract: The article addresses the issue of differentiating administrative sanctions according to fault in the management of EU funds. As a rule, the legal consequence of irregularities within EU funds is the refusal of a claim or the withdrawal of an unjustifiably obtained benefit, which is also common in the act of fraud or intentional non-compliance. In the case of fraud or intentional misconduct, such sanctions may be accompanied by additional administrative penalties. Although regulation in the EU law pursues the legitimate aim of protecting the EU's financial interests, which is an integral part of the principle of sound financial management, it raises a number of questions in terms of compliance with the criteria of economy, efficiency, effectiveness, proportionality of administrative costs and simplicity of procedures, especially in regards to differentiation of administrative sanctions according to different notions of fault. From this point of view, the current regulation is examined and a potential solution is identified as to how to regulate this in such a way that the administrative or contractual implementation of EU funds will be improved without prejudice to the criminal prosecution of irregularities. In light of the length of proceedings, the EU Member States are also exposed to double responsibility, namely liability towards beneficiaries on one hand and liability to the EU budget, reflected in financial corrections made by the Commission, on the other.
Keywords: fraud, intent, negligence, irregularity, evidence law, EU funds
