Frequently Asked Questions on Conflict of Interest in Recovery and Resilience Facility (RRF)

Conflict of interest

What is it?

Conflict can arise when an administrative body leader's decision-making abilities are influenced by personal interests, including family ties, potentially compromising the objectivity of their decisions. The presence of a conflict of interest often leads to the obligation to refrain from decision-making or even renders a particular role incompatible.

This definition, a translation from the Diccionario del español jurídico de la RAE, illustrates the elements of a conflict of interest. The situation is addressed in various areas, including financial and stock market regulations, commercial regulations, and regulations governing the functioning of the public administration or public procurement.

However, in the context of conflict of interest within the RRF field, the two fundamental rules are stated in Article 61 of Regulation (EU, Euratom) 2018/1046 of the European Parliament and of the Council, of 18 July 2018 on the financial regulations that apply to the Union's general budget, and Article 23 of Law 40/2015, of 1 October, on the Legal Order for the Public Sector.

Both regulations require that individuals affected by conflicts of interest must abstain from participating, and that their superiors intervene in such cases.

Article 64 of Law 9/2017 of 8 November on Public Procurement and Article 11 of Law 3/2015 of 30 March on the General Administration of the Highest Officials supplement the relevant national provisions.

How EU Financial Regulation 2018 Regulates Conflict of Interest

Conflict of interest is regulated by Article 61:

1. Financial actors as defined in Chapter 4 of this Title, along with any other parties, including national authorities at any level, involved in budget implementation through direct, indirect, or shared management, as well as activities leading up to this, or audit and control, must avoid any actions that may lead to a conflict of interest with the Union. They must also take suitable actions to prevent conflicts of interest in the functions that fall under their responsibility and handle situations that could be seen as conflicts of interest.

2. If a member of staff at a national authority is at risk of a conflict of interest, they should refer the matter to their line manager. For employees covered by the Statute, the individual must refer the issue to the appropriate authorising officer by delegation. If a conflict of interest is present, the respective line manager or authorised officer, by delegation, must provide written confirmation. Where a conflict of interest is identified, the Appointing Authority or the relevant national authority must ensure the individual in question stops all involvement in that issue. The delegated authorising officer or appropriate national authority must ensure that any supplementary measures comply with relevant legislation.

3. For paragraph 1, a conflict of interest arises when the unbiased and dispassionate performance of duties by financial actors and others mentioned in paragraph 1 is impeded due to reasons like family ties, emotional attachment, political or national preference, economic gain or any other direct or indirect interest.

Article 61 of the FR 2018 applies directly to Member States to the extent that they participate in the implementation of the EU budget. Their duty to prevent and solve conflicts of interest, as stated in this article, is not reliant on the implementation of national transposition measures.

However, Article 61 of the FR 2018 is not a comprehensive regulation on conflicts of interest and their management, as it only suggests adopting relevant measures to prevent and resolve these situations. Moreover, national authorities retain the power to implement supplementary and potentially more comprehensive or rigid national regulations, as evidenced by the mention of "any additional measures in accordance with applicable law" in Article 61(2) of FR 2018. However, Commission Communication 221/C121/01 provides instructions on how to prevent and handle conflict of interest incidents in accordance with the Financial Regulation.

The definition of conflict of interest in Article 61(3) is broad, encompassing "any other direct or indirect motive of personal interest". This means that a conflict of interest can arise even if the person does not benefit from the situation. It is enough that the circumstances compromise the impartial and objective exercise of their functions.

The three key components of a conflict-of-interest scenario should be emphasised: The intervention of the hierarchical superior of the person concerned.

• That the situation may impact the impartial and objective execution of functions and subsequently, the budget's management.
• The intervention of the hierarchical superior of the person concerned.
• Once the conflict situation has been verified, the person involved must cease their activity.

Regulations pertaining to national conflict of interest Article 23, Law 40/2015, of 1 October, on the Legal Order for the Public Sector (LRJSP in Spanish).

Law 40/2015 of 1 October, on the Legal Order for the Public Sector outlines when public sector authorities and personnel should refrain from intervening in procedures and communicate the matter to their superior. The superior will then determine an appropriate course of action.

This regulation impacts all administrative processes, including those related to budget management, like awarding contracts and granting public subsidies, which are crucial legal tools in the implementation and management of the Recovery, Transformation and Resilience Plan (RTRP).

The scenarios outlined in Article 23.2 of the Legal Order for the Public Sector Law (LGJSP) are like those enumerated in the EU Financial Regulation 2018. There is no requirement for adjustment since the provisions of the Financial Regulation automatically apply if EU funds are handled.

The LRJSP standard shares fundamental components with the European standard:

• That the situation may impact the impartial and objective execution of functions and subsequently, the budget's management.
• The intervention of the hierarchical superior of the person concerned.
• Once the conflict situation has been verified, the person involved must cease their activity.

Quienes están sometidos a la normativa sobre conflicto de interés.

Tanto el artículo 61 del Reglamento Financiero UE 2018/1086, como el artículo 23 de la Ley 40/2015, de Régimen Jurídico del Sector público, se refieren a autoridades y personal de las Administraciones, en esta última norma, y a autoridades nacionales y su personal en el caso del Reglamento Financiero UE.

Por tanto, cabe interpretar que, con carácter general, tanto los Órganos Superiores y Directivos (altos cargos), como el resto de los empleados del Sector Público quedan afectados por la normativa sobre conflicto de interés. Con carácter general se puede decir que el conflicto de interés se produce entre el deber público que atañe a esas personas y el interés personal (directo o indirecto) que pueda contraponerse a ese deber de objetividad e imparcialidad en su actuación pública.

En el caso del PRTR se puede afirmar que todo aquel que interviene en su ejecución es susceptible de verse afectado por un conflicto de interés. Así lo indica la Orden 1030/2021, de 29 de septiembre, por la que se configura el sistema de gestión del Plan de Recuperación, Transformación y Resiliencia, al disponer la obligación de los órganos gestores de cumplimentar una declaración de ausencia de conflicto de interés (DACI), obligación que extiende a los intervinientes en los procedimientos de gestión del PRTR, al ser esta una medida que necesariamente debe contemplarse en los Planes de Medidas Antifraude aprobados por las Entidades Decisoras, Ejecutoras e Instrumentales del PRTR.

Sin embargo, la Comunicación de la Comisión 221/C121/01 “orientaciones sobre cómo evitar y gestionar las situaciones de conflicto de intereses con arreglo al Reglamento Financiero” matiza que “su participación tiene que ser razonablemente significativa: la persona debe estar facultada para ejercer un cierto grado de discreción o control sobre la ejecución del presupuesto (es decir, el poder de actuar o dar instrucciones a los que actúan; o una función de asesoramiento o de proporcionar dictámenes a quienes actúan)”. Por tanto, no todas las personas que intervienen en los procedimientos de gestión pueden verse afectadas por una situación de conflicto de interés, sólo aquellas cuya actuación reúne alguna de las propiedades o características reseñadas.

El apartado IIIC.d.1 del Anexo de la Orden 1030/2021, contiene una serie de orientaciones sobre prevención y tratamiento del conflicto de interés y cita una serie de aquellos intervinientes en los procedimientos que deben emitir una DACI, pero no es una lista cerrada, ni excluyente, debiendo ser los Planes de Medidas Antifraude los que determinen aquellos intervinientes que cumplen las condiciones que se describen en la citada Comunicación de la Comisión.

En el ámbito de la contratación el conflicto de interés puede afectar al personal al servicio del órgano de contratación, que además participe en el desarrollo del procedimiento de licitación o pueda influir en el resultado del mismo (artículo 64 LCSP). Produciéndose el conflicto de interés por cualquier situación en la que las personas que participan en estos procedimientos “tengan, directa o indirectamente, un interés financiero, económico o personal que pudiera parecer que compromete su imparcialidad e independencia en el contexto del procedimiento de contratación”. En definitiva, se trata de evitar cualquier menoscabo a los principios de igualdad de trato y transparencia que deben observarse en el desarrollo de estos procedimientos. Idea que puede trasladarse sin problemas a otros procedimientos, como pueden ser los relativos a concesión de subvenciones y, en general, a todos aquellos en que haya una pluralidad de posibles beneficiarios.

Por tanto, también debe tenerse en cuenta la posible amenaza al respeto de esos principios a la hora de determinar si un interviniente en la gestión puede incurrir en un conflicto de interés.

Conflict of Interest in RRF

What obligations do states have regarding conflict of interest?

When implementing the Recovery and Resilience Facility, Member States, as beneficiaries or borrowers of funds under the Facility, must take all suitable action to safeguard the financial interests of the Union and to ensure that funds are used for measures financed by the Facility follows relevant Union and national law, particularly regarding the prevention, identification and rectification of fraud, corruption, and conflicts of interest.

Article 22 of Regulation (EU) 2021/241 of the European Parliament and of the Council, of 12 February 2021, introduces the measures that RRF-funded countries must adopt. Furthermore, it emphasises the need for the establishment of sound internal controls to detect and recover any wrongly paid or misused amounts.

Similarly, when referring to the obligations for Member States that enter agreements to receive loans or financial contributions under the RRF, it is essential to take appropriate measures to prevent, detect, and correct fraud, corruption, and conflicts of interest in accordance with Article 61(2) and (3) of Regulation (EU, Euratom) 2018/1046 of the European Parliament and of the Council, which outlines the financial rules applicable to the general budget of the Union.

The initial response to the demand for Regulation 2021/410, which sets out the RRF, is outlined in Order 1030/2021, of 29 September. This order establishes the Recovery, Transformation and Resilience Plan (RTRP) management system.

Article 6 of this Order addresses strengthening the prevention, detection, and correction of fraud, corruption, and conflicts of interest. It introduces two compulsory measures.

The Anti-Fraud Action Plan requires approval from all decision-makers and implementers involved in the RTRP. This obligation applies to organisations that implement the RTRP on an operational basis.

The plan to prevent fraud should detail procedures for avoiding and addressing conflict of interest scenarios as required by Article 61(1) and (2) of the EU Financial Regulation. It should be mandatory for individuals involved in RTRP implementation to sign a SACI form, informing their line manager of any potential conflicts of interest. The line manager should then make an appropriate decision in each instance.

Management bodies must conduct a risk assessment, fill out Statements of Absence of Conflict of Interest (SACI) and establish a process to deal with conflicts of interest.

What regulations develop the prevention and detection of conflict of interest in Spain?

Article 6 of Order 1030/2021 of 29 September, which establishes the management system for the Recovery, Transformation and Resilience Plan, reinforces mechanisms for preventing, detecting, and correcting fraud, corruption, and conflicts of interest. This order establishes a standard regulation for cases involving conflicts of interest, drawing from Article 61 of the EU Financial Regulation 2018 and Article 23 of Law 40/2015, on the Legal Order for the Public Sector.

The Additional Provision 112 of Law 31/2022, of the General State Budget for 2023, sets out a distinct protocol for preventing and identifying conflicts of interest, as well as guidelines on how to perform systematic and automated analysis of the risk of such conflicts in procedures that implement the Recovery, Transformation and Resilience Plan.

Order 55/2023 of 24 January outlines the systematic and automated evaluation of the risk of conflict of interest in the procedures that implement the Recovery, Transformation and Resilience Plan. This order details the Minerva IT tool, which will be used for the aforementioned analysis, its scope, and application criteria.

It is established in the Additional Provision 112 of the State General Budgets for 2023 about the Conflict of Interests

A procedure for preventing and detecting conflicts of interest. This standard outlines the procedures for systematic and automated conflict of interest risk analysis when implementing the Recovery, Transformation and Resilience Plan.

Highlights include:

What are the objectives of the Tax Customs Office Order HFP/55/2023?

This Order enacts the provisions of Law 31/2022, from the General State Budget for 2023, concerning the establishment of a process for the methodical and automated assessment of the risk of conflict of interest during the implementation of the RTRP, as prescribed in its Additional Provision. 112.

Its most important objectives are:

Preventing Conflict of Interest (CI) in the RTRP. Systems and actors.

What CI risk prevention systems are in place?

Article 6 of Order 1030/2021, of 29 September, which establishes the management system for the Recovery, Transformation and Resilience Plan, requires all entities, whether decision-makers or implementers, involved in the implementation of RTRP measures to have an "Anti-Fraud Action Plan." The purpose of this plan is to enable entities to ensure and declare that, in their respective field of action, funds have been used in compliance with applicable rules, with particular attention paid to preventing, detecting, and correcting fraud, corruption and conflicts of interest. The requirement to have an Anti-Fraud Action Plan also applies to RTRP entities.

Likewise, managing bodies must complete the Statements of Absence of Conflict of Interest (SACI) have a procedure for dealing with conflicts of interest and assess fraud risk.

The system for preventing conflicts of interest comprises three elements.

Additional provision 112 of Law 31/2022, of 23 December on the General State Budget establishes this system for preventing the risk of conflict of interest, which is implemented by Order HFP 55/2023, of 24 January.

What are statements of absence of conflict of interest (SACIs)?

The Statement of Absence of Conflict of Interest (SACI) is a mandatory document that individuals involved in RTRP implementation procedures must sign. The intervention can be direct or indirect, but it should affect the procedure's conduct. This means that those who may influence the procedure's conduct and outcome should sign the SACI.

The SACI is a crucial aspect of the conflict-of-interest risk prevention system. It involves self-assessment by those participating in the procedures. Their subscription shows a clear dedication to staying impartial and objective in their professional work.

La Orden 1030/2021 establece en su Anexo IV un modelo de general utilización para todas las personas que intervengan en los procedimientos para la ejecución del PRTR.

Order 55/2023  approves a SACI model connected to the process for systematic and automated analysis of the risk of conflict of interest outlined in this regulation.

Quien está obligado a firmar una DACI.

Quienes participen en los procedimientos de ejecución del PRTR, según establece la Orden HFP/1030/2021, de 29 de septiembre, por la que se configura el sistema de gestión del Plan de Recuperación, Transformación y Resiliencia, en su artículo 6.

Sin embargo, esa participación tiene que ser razonablemente significativa: la persona debe estar facultada para ejercer un cierto grado de discreción o control sobre la ejecución del presupuesto (es decir, el poder de actuar o dar instrucciones a los que actúan; o una función de asesoramiento o de proporcionar dictámenes a quienes actúan), tal como matiza la Comunicación de la Comisión Europea 2021/C 121 de Orientaciones sobre cómo evitar y gestionar situaciones de conflicto de interés.

Son los Planes de Medidas Antifraude y, en última instancia, los responsables de la gestión de los procedimientos que desarrollan el PRTR quienes deben definir las personas o perfiles que intervienen de forma significativa en esos procedimientos y por tanto están obligados a efectuar la DACI. En esta tarea pueden ser asesorados por los responsables del control de primer nivel creado en las Entidades Decisoras, Ejecutoras e Instrumentales del PRTR.

Como orientación se pueden definir perfiles de responsables y colaboradores que tienen esa incidencia significativa en el desarrollo de los instrumentos jurídicos (procedimientos) que se incardinan en el PRTR.

Entre los primeros estarían los responsables del inicio del procedimiento, de la decisión una vez realizados los trámites exigibles, de la firma de los documentos donde se formalizan esos instrumentos jurídicos o se responsabilizan de la posterior ejecución de ese negocio jurídico.

En el caso de los colaboradores necesarios en el procedimiento se puede mencionar a los que tienen participación significativa en la elaboración de los documentos preparatorios (especialmente Pliegos rectores de los contratos y, bases y convocatorias en el caso de subvenciones), a los comités de apertura y evaluación, así como a los técnicos y expertos seleccionados para intervenir en esas valoraciones.

En la citada Orden 1030/2021, también se prevé, dentro de las medidas relacionadas con la prevención del conflicto de interés, la cumplimentación de una DACI como requisito a aportar por los beneficiarios que, dentro de los requisitos de concesión de la ayuda, deban llevar a cabo actividades que presenten un conflicto de intereses potencial.

Which SACI model to use?

The (SACI) model, which has been approved by Order HFP 55/2023, should be used by (decision-makers) involved in the contracting and grant awarding phases specified in this Order:

The use of this SACI is compulsory for procurement and grant award procedures where the call for proposals was published on or after 26 January 2023, as previously specified.

A SACI that is not sanctioned by the Tax Customs Office Order HFP/55/2023 may be employed for the methodical and automated study of CI irrigation.

No, in principle the approved (SACI) should be used for the procedures and persons covered by the systematic and automated conflict of interest risk analysis developed in this standard.

However, the Order states that the SACI model's content is minimal. Therefore, it would be feasible to incorporate certain references outlined in the SACI model as authorised by Order 1030/2021.

What cases is the SACI approved by Order 1030/2021?

In cases where the approved model specified in Order 55/2023 is not mandatory.

The SACI, which analyses the risk of conflict of interest in a systematic and automated manner, is tailored to this task. It is noteworthy that those bound to the SACI must identify the participants involved in the procurement or grant award procedures prior to its signing.

El modelo de DACI aprobado en la Orden 1030/2021 es de carácter genérico y puede aplicarse a momentos diferentes de los procedimientos de contratación y subvenciones de los recogidos en la Orden 55/2023. Por ejemplo, a las personas que intervienen en las fases de preparación de la contratación o de procedimientos subvenciónales (elaboración de pliegos, documentos de licitación, bases reguladoras o convocatorias de subvenciones), a las que intervienen en la elaboración o firma de Convenios, a los responsables de los contratos en la fase de ejecución de estos, o en aquellos casos que puedan establecer los Comités Antifraude.

El carácter de genérico con que se caracteriza a este modelo de DACI se refiere a su aplicación a diferentes aspectos de la ejecución del PRTR y al hecho de que en algunos casos el obligado a realizar la DACI no conoce quiénes serán los participantes en los procedimientos en que interviene

Other conflict of interest statements.

Order 1030/2021, of 29 September, outlines the management system for the Recovery, Transformation and Resilience Plan and incorporates a model commitment to compliance with cross-cutting principles in Annex IV. This model is elaborated on in section C of the Annex.

This template is intended for individuals involved in the implementation of the RTRP, including third parties such as contractors, subcontractors, recipients of orders, or grant beneficiaries.

All individuals must adhere to "upholding legal, ethical and moral standards, implementing measures to prevent and detect instances of fraud, corruption, and conflicts of interest, and reporting any violations to the relevant authorities" as outlined in the standard declaration.

Minerva System: CI risk verification

Minerva is a data mining software tool located at the Spanish State Agency for Tax Administration. It is used to analyse the risk of conflict of interest systematically and automatically in procedures implementing the Recovery, Transformation and Resilience Plan. This tool is accessible to all decision-makers, operational entities, and instrumental entities involved in the RTRP scheme, as well as all public entities' service agents participating in RTRP implementation. Additionally, competent control bodies of the RRF can also make use of this tool.

Order 55/2023, of 24 January outlines the systematic analysis of the risk of conflict of interest in the procedures of executing the Recovery, Transformation, and Resilience Plan. The order details the guidelines on how Minerva is to be used during the analysis of the risk of conflict of interest.

The risk analysis of conflicts of interest involves using Minerva to compare the tax identification numbers, first and last names of decision-makers in the transaction with those of natural or legal persons participating in each procedure. The natural person's first and last names, and the legal person's company name, are taken into consideration.

What is CoFFEE? Relationship with preventing conflicts of interest.

It is the information system for European Funds from 2021 to 2027. CoFFEE-MMR is the application module designed to support the information system of the Recovery, Transformation and Resilience Plan.

In addition to monitoring RTRP milestones and objectives, it also supports the projects, sub-projects, and actions involved in the development of the RTRP.

In CoFFEE, we register the operations (contracts and subsidies) that aid in developing the actions outlined in the RTRP's projects and sub-projects.

Likewise, the individuals responsible for operations and assigned to analyse conflict of interest risk in the Minerva tool are registered. Minerva automatically checks if the transaction manager making the enquiry is registered in CoFFEE for the relevant transaction.

In CoFFEE, we register (SACIs) that have been signed by operations decision-makers, as well as the documentation related to the results of risk analyses in Minerva, in accordance with Order 55/2023.

For which cases is the risk analysis for conflicts of interest performed?

According to paragraph 2 of additional provision 112 of Law 31/2022 of 23 December, the automated and systematic analysis of conflict-of-interest risk applies to the procedures associated with implementing the Recovery, Transformation and Resilience Plan:

For the purposes of Order 55/2023, of 24 January, the aforementioned procedures are considered as operations.

On whom will the verification of the CI risk be carried out?

The second additional one hundred and twelfth provision of Law 31/2022 of 23 December provides that the systematic and automated analysis of the risk of conflict of interest shall be carried out in each procedure for the persons performing the following functions, referred to for these purposes as decision-makers:

The conflict-of-interest analysis shall be carried out on public officials involved in procurement or grant award procedures in the framework of a RTRP action, whether or not they are part of an implementing or an instrumental organisation. The latter includes the representatives of the legal services and the auditors who act as members of the contracting entities. Del mismo modo este puede ser el caso de los técnicos y comités de expertos constituidos para asistencia del órgano de contratación.

This analysis also applies to those that perform functions like those listed, even if they are not governed in their operation by Law 9/2017, of 8 November, on Public Contracts, or Law 38/2003, of 17 November, General Law on Subsidies.

The Minerva, IT tool is used to analyse possible family relationships or direct or indirect business relationships between the above persons and the participants in each procedure, in which there may be a personal or economic interest that could lead to a conflict of interest.

What is an operation in the systematic conflict of interest risk analysis?

In the context of the systematic analysis of the risk of conflict of interest established by Decree 55/2023, the procedures referred to in subsection 2 of Additional Provision 112 of Law 31/2022 on the General State Budget for 2023 are in operation:

The operation that refers to one of these legal instruments must be registered in CoFFEE, associating it with one of the measures designed for the implementation of the projects and sub-projects that make up the RTRP.

Once registered, a reference code (CRO) is automatically assigned to identify the transaction for subsequent processing in Minerva. This code is only relevant for the purposes of conflict-of-interest risk analysis.

Who initiates the CI risk analysis procedure at Minerva?

Operational managers are responsible for initiating the ex-ante conflict of interest risk analysis procedure prior to the evaluation of tenders or applications in each procurement or grant award procedure and as soon as the participants in these procedures are known.

Who is responsible for operation?

The person responsible for the operation is the contracting authority or the body responsible for awarding the grant.

The Operations Manager is the only person who is authorised to carry out the analysis of the risk of conflict of interest in Minerva. Por tanto, esta función queda directamente vinculada a la persona que ejerza la competencia de contratación o concesión de la subvención.

In the case of collegiate bodies, the person responsible for the operation will be their president, as this is the representative of the collegiate body, as stipulated in Article 19 of the Law on the Legal Order for the Public Sector (LRJSP in Spanish).

In the centralised public procurement system, where the contracting authority for contracts based on a framework agreement or for specific contracts in a dynamic purchasing system is the Central Purchasing Board, the operations manager is responsible for submitting the award proposal of the entity to which the contract is addressed.

How to identify who is responsible for the operation?

In the CoFFEE app, the responsible persons for each activity are identified by the managing bodies and instrumental managers of the RTRP. A code generated by the CoFFEE application identifies each operation manager.

What is the transaction reference code (CRO)?

The Transaction Reference Code (CRO) is a way to identify inCoFFEE the transactions (legal instruments) included in the different actions that make up the projects, sub-projects and instrumental projects (nodes) developed under the RTRP.

Each action may be linked to one or more operations (contracts or grants).

Una vez creado un CRO aparecerá en CoFFEE, referenciado como código de operación.

The CRO is referenced as a transaction code in both CoFFEE and Minerva once generated.

Where to get the CRO

The CRO is obtained in the CoFFEE app.

The first step is to register a legal instrument (a contract or a grant) in CoFFEE for the action in question. CoFFEE will automatically assign a unique transaction code to this legal instrument, if it is marked in the application as "Requires conflict of interest check".

When the operations manager initiates an enquiry in Minerva, the system automatically verifies in CoFFEE that the manager is authorised to make the enquiry on the CRO stated in their report request. If the check is positive, the consultation process will begin in Minerva.

What is the role of the project/sub-project Managing Body in the conflict-of-interest risk analysis procedure?

This entity collaborates in the identification of the person responsible for the transaction in the CoFFEE app, as well as in the generation of the transaction reference code (CRO). These are necessary steps to perform the conflict-of-interest risk analysis in Minerva.

The project/sub-project management body shall be informed of the results of the conflict-of-interest risk analysis carried out.

Who are the decision-makers?

In Order 55/2023, of 24 January, the persons involved in the procedures for awarding contracts or grants at the various stages referred to in the aforementioned Order are referred to as the decision-makers of the operation.

A systematic and automated analysis of the risk of conflict of interest is carried out for these persons, who are required to sign the declaration of absence of conflict of interest (SACI) regarding the procedure in which they participate.

What is the role of line managers?

The line manager is the head of the body or unit in which the decision-maker is integrated, with powers to direct and coordinate.

If the result of the conflict-of-interest risk analysis is positive (red flag), the operations manager will inform the line manager. It must decide, justifying its reasoning, whether the Decision-Maker concerned by the red flag should proceed or abstain from proceeding.

The line manager may ask the anti-fraud committee, via the operations manager, for its report on the decision-maker concerned before deciding on the matter.

Finally, it is the responsibility of the line manager to make a reasoned decision on the conflict that has arisen, with regards to the case and any advice that may have been given. The role of the hierarchical superior is regulated in this sense both in the EU Financial Regulation 2018 and in Law 40/2015 on the Legal Order for the Public Sector, as well as in Order 55/2023.

What do the Anti-Fraud Committees do?

The anti-fraud committees are set up with the anti-fraud action plan, which must be approved by all entities, decision-makers or executors and facilitators, in order to ensure and declare that the RTRP funds have been used in accordance with the applicable rules in their area of operation, in particular with regard to the prevention, detection and correction of fraud, corruption and conflicts of interest. (Article 6, Order 1030/2021 of 29 September).

Their responsibilities include the management and maintenance of the plan, the approval of criteria and guidelines for action, the monitoring of approved measures, the development of the plan and its review conducted periodically.

In the framework of the procedure for resolving any red flags that may arise in the conflict-of-interest risk analysis, they must issue a report on their resolution, at the request of the person responsible for the operation, and may, where appropriate, request the advice of the IGAE's Specialised CI Advisory Unit (SCIAU), for the preparation of the aforementioned report.

What is the purpose of the Specialised CI Advisory Unit (SCIAU)?

This unit was established by Additional Provision 112 of Law 31/2022 of 23 December, of the General State Budget for the year 2023, which, in its section 9, provides for the creation, within the General Intervention of the State Administration, of a specialised unit to advise on the analysis of the risk of conflict of interest.

The advisory role of this unit is limited to informing the anti-fraud committees, which are consulted in the development of the procedure to be followed in the event of a risk of conflict of interest (red flag) being identified by the Minerva IT tool (article 6.3 of Decree HFP 55/2023).

The consultation is carried out on the website of the “Intervención General de la Administración del Estado” assigned to the SCIAU, using the form provided to the Anti-Fraud Committees.

Other SCIAU functions include:

• Promoting best practice in avoiding and preventing conflicts of interest
• Developing practical manuals to help anti-fraud committees and managers identify and manage conflicts of interest.
• Reporting in advance on policies or procedures to avoid conflicts of interest.

Ex-ante CI risk analysis procedure.

To which administrative procedures does the systematic risk analysis of the CI apply?

El procedimiento de análisis sistemático y automatizado del riesgo del conflicto de interés en los procedimientos que ejecutan el Plan de Recuperación, Transformación y Resiliencia (PRTR) se llevará a cabo en los procedimientos de adjudicación de contratos y de concesión de subvenciones vinculados a la ejecución del citado PRTR, a fin de verificar la ausencia de conflicto de interés entre los miembros de los órganos de contratación y de concesión de subvenciones, y los participantes en los citados procedimientos en las diferentes fases del mismo, en los términos establecidos en la disposición adicional centésima décima segunda de la Ley 31/2022, de 23 de diciembre, de Presupuestos Generales del Estado para 2023.

How is CI risk analysis performed?

It is carried out by using the Minerva, data mining software tool, based at the Spanish State Tax Administration Agency, which is made available to all decision-makers, executing, and facilitating entities participating in the RTRP, as well as to all those working for public entities participating in the implementation of the RTRP and the competent control bodies of the RRF.

The analysis consists of comparing the personal data (NIF) of the persons (decision-makers) involved in the award of contracts and grants with the personal data (NIF) of the participants in these calls for tenders or calls for grants to check that there are no family or business links between the members of the two groups.

When is the CI risk analysis procedure initiated?

Before evaluating the tenders or applications in each procedure, the persons responsible for the operation shall initiate the procedure for the ex-ante analysis of the risk of conflict of interest, in accordance with Order No 55/2023, of 24 January, and shall have access to the Minerva app, in which they shall enter the data necessary for carrying out this analysis.

Que sucede si no se realiza el análisis de riesgo de CI antes de la valoración de las ofertas o solicitudes

Se produce un deterioro del sistema de prevención y detección del conflicto de interés y por tanto del sistema de salvaguarda de los intereses financieros de la Unión Europea que puede tener consecuencias negativas en el desarrollo del PRTR.

En estos casos es recomendable realizar este análisis lo antes posible, indicando las circunstancias que impidieron o motivaron no hacerlo en su momento.

Se debe recalcar que la merma en la fiabilidad y en la confianza del análisis de riesgo de CI crece en la medida en que el lapso de tiempo transcurrido desde que se debió efectuar sea mayor. La razón principal de ello es la mayor posibilidad de cambios en la composición de los administradores y/o de los titulares reales de las entidades que concurren al procedimiento que se está tramitando. Los cambios de personas darían lugar a diferentes cruces de información en Minerva respecto de los que se hubieran realizado de aplicar el análisis en el momento que marca la Orden 55/2023.

El gestor debe decidir si realiza alguna actuación que mitigue el riesgo de diferencias en los resultados que puede ofrecer Minerva. En este sentido se debe valorar el tiempo transcurrido hasta la realización del análisis y las características de las entidades concurrentes que puedan representar mayores posibilidades de cambios en su composición personal y puedan aconsejar consultar con ellas si se han producido esos posibles cambios mencionados y actuar en consecuencia.

De todas estas actuaciones se debe dejar constancia en el expediente para su consideración por los auditores.

What information is needed to start the analysis procedure in Minerva?

The transaction manager accesses Minerva and identifies himself with his NIF, by means of an electronic certificate or through the key system, and then identifies the transaction to be analysed by means of the transaction reference code (CRO).

The information to be entered to perform the CI risk analysis is:

• The tax identification numbers of the persons subject to the analysis (decision-makers of the operation), together with their names and surnames (list of decision-makers).
• The tax identification numbers of the natural or legal persons involved in each procedure, together with their first names and surnames in the case of the former and their company name in the case of the latter (list of potential beneficiaries).

Who is subject to CI risk analysis?

A systematic and automated analysis of the risk of conflict of interest shall be carried out in each procedure for persons performing the following or similar functions:

With contracts, the single member contracting authority, members of the collegiate contracting authority, and members of the collegiate body assisting the contracting authority.

For subsidies, the entity responsible for granting subsidies and the members of the committees evaluating applications.

The conflict-of-interest analysis shall be carried out on such employees, whether they are part of a RTRP executing entity or RTRP facilitator. For the purposes of these procedures, they are decision-makers in all cases.

At what stages of the administrative process is systematic CI risk analysis required?

For procurement procedures, the conflict-of-interest analysis shall be carried out at the evaluation stage of tenders, proposal for contract awarding and award of contract.

For subsidies, it will be carried out at the application evaluation and award decision stages.

Who is obliged to carry out a SACI?

Individuals (decision-makers) involved in contract and grant award procedures are required to electronically sign Statements of Absence of Conflict of Interest (SACI) for participants in procurement or subsidy procedures. This will be done once those involved are known.

What possible relationships are subject to analysis?

The Minerva IT tool is used to analyse possible family relationships or direct or indirect business relationships between the above persons and the participants in each procedure, in which there may be a personal or economic interest that could lead to a conflict of interest.

A corporate relationship is likely to give rise to a conflict of interest if it involves actual ownership or your involvement as a director, executive officer or member of the board of directors of the company in question.

Who is responsible for initiating the CI risk analysis?

The contracting authority or the body responsible for awarding the grant shall initiate the procedure for ex ante analysis of the risk of conflict of interest. For these purposes, they are responsible for an integrated action in a project or sub-project (including instrumental ones) of the RTRP.

In the case of collegial bodies performing the above, the analysis shall be carried out by their chairperson in their capacity as representative of the collegial body, as provided for in Article 19 of the LRJSP.

In the centralised public procurement system, where the contracting authority for contracts based on a framework agreement or for specific contracts in a dynamic purchasing system is the Central Purchasing Board, the operations manager is responsible for submitting the award proposal of the entity to which the contract is addressed.

Before starting the conflict-of-interest risk analysis, the project manager must ensure that they have received the transaction reference code(CRO) generated by the CoFFEE app, which is necessary to start the consultation in the Minerva application.

How CI systematic risk analysis is performed.

Those in charge of operations will access Minerva by identifying themselves with their NIF using a qualified electronic certificate or the Cl@ve system. Minerva automatically checks in CoFFEE whether the transaction manager is authorised to make an enquiry for one or more transactions.

Those in charge of operations must enter the transaction reference code (CRO) into Minerva along with information about those involved in the procedures. This is necessary to conduct an ex-ante analysis of the risk of conflict of interest. The required information includes:

• The Tax Identification Number of the person(s) involved in the analysis (the person(s) making the decision(s) regarding the transaction), together with their first name and surname.
• The tax identification numbers of the natural or legal persons participating in each procedure, together with their first names and surnames in the case of the former and their company name in the case of the latter, who are participating in the same procedure as tenderers or applicants. In the case of grants with massive concurrence (more than one hundred applications), the analysis of the risk of conflict of interest is carried out in accordance with the provisions of Annex III of Order 55/2023, of 24 January.

What results can CI risk analysis provide?

Once the data has been cross-checked, Minerva will provide the result of the conflict-of-interest risk analysis to the person responsible for the operation the day after the consultation.

The potential outcomes are:

• No red flags were found. The procedure can continue because no risk of conflict of interest has been identified.
• One or more red flags have been detected. Circumstances have been identified which appear to indicate a risk of conflict of interests. Until the red flag is removed, the procedure must be interrupted. Minerva’s output will display the tax identification number of the decision-maker in question and the tax identification number of their partner at risk of a conflict of interest (tenderer or applicant). The operations manager must bring the red flag to the attention of the decision-maker concerned and of their line manager, so that they can take appropriate action.
• One/several flag(s)/black flag(s) has/have been detected. Este resultado indica que no se ha encontrado la titularidad real de la persona jurídica solicitante, circunstancia que impide el análisis del conflicto de interés completo. This does not mean that the ongoing proceedings will be automatically suspended. On the other hand, the black flag can occur simultaneously with either of the other two possible results, red flag or no red flag. To attempt to remedy the lack of information on the actual ownership of the applicant legal entity, the procedure provided for in Article 7 of Order55/2023, of 24 January will be applied.

What actions should the operation manager take in response to the results of the CI risk consultation?

The entity responsible for the operation is informed of the outcome of the conflict-of-interest analysis. In turn, it forwards it to the managing bodies of the projects and sub-projects (or their equivalent in the case of instrumental projects) in which the operation is integrated into the RTRP management information system.

Similarly, the outcome of the analysis must be communicated by the operations manager to those undergoing conflict of interest risk analysis. They should refrain from participation if a red flag has been raised regarding the existence of a conflict-of-interest risk situation for them. It shall also send this outcome to the line manager of the relevant decision-maker.

In any event, it is crucial that the operations manager guarantees the outcomes of the analysis are documented in the CoFFEE app to facilitate potential audits carried out by the competent RRF audit authorities.

What does "no red flags detected" mean?

It means that there are circumstances indicating a risk of conflict of interest, allowing the procedure to continue.

If one or more red flags are detected,

it reveals potential conflict of interest requiring the operation manager to inform decision-makers, and their line managers, of the red flag to halt the procedure if necessary.

The procedure must be stopped until the red flag is resolved.

If the decision-maker does not abstain, Article 6 of Order 55/2023 of 24 January outlines the procedure to follow when a CI risk (red flag) is detected.

What procedure should be applied once a CI risk (red flag) has been detected?

The ones developed in Article 6 of Order55/2023, of 24 January.

1) The decision-maker can abstain within two working days of identifying a conflict-of-interest risk, leading to a re-evaluation of the risk for the replacement of the abstaining person.

2) If an individual, identified as having a conflict-of-interest risk via a red flag, disputes the validity of this information with their line manager, they are required to confirm their absence of conflict of interest by promptly signing a statement of absence of conflict of interest (Annex II of Order 55/2023). The statement should accurately represent the situation and their lack of conflict. It must be completed within two working days.

In this scenario, the operation manager must request additional information from Minerva regarding the detected risks, citing the need for this data because abstention has not occurred.

The supplementary information provided by Minerva will not reveal third-party information but will describe the risks involved. The operations manager will then convey this additional information to the decision-maker's line manager.

The line manager of the decision-maker, after considering the provided information from Minerva, the decision-maker's arguments, and possibly the Anti-Fraud Committee’s, report, will make a reasoned decision:

• Approve the decision-maker’s participation in the procedure despite the red flag.
• Instruct the decision-maker identified in the red flag to abstain from the procedure. In the latter case, the process will be repeated so that a risk analysis for the person replacing the abstained decision-maker complies with the established procedure.

3) If the operations manager, either voluntarily or upon request from their line manager, refers the matter to Anti-Fraud Committee, the committee must produce a report within two days, specifying whether the abstention is appropriate or not.

Additionally, the Anti-Fraud Committee has the option to request a report from the unit (SCIAU) of the General Intervention of the State Administration, as outlined in Article 8 of Order HFP 55/2023 of 24 January 2023. The opinion must be obtained within two working days, in addition to the previously mentioned timeframe.

Following this process, the operations manager is responsible for recording various documents in the CoFFEE app. This includes the reasoned explanation of the absence of conflict of interest, any information provided by Minerva, the report from the Anti-Fraud Committee, and the decision made by the line manager. This documentation is essential for the potential audits conducted by the RRF audit authorities.

What happens if the decision maker affected by a red flag does not recognise the CI?

If the decision maker, who is flagged for a potential conflict of interest, disputes the accuracy of the identification (red flag), they must notify their line manager. To do so, the must reaffirm their Statement of Absence of Conflict of Interest (SACI), form. This new form should accurately reflect the situation at hand and confirm thhe absence of a conflict of interest. It must be completed within two working days. To fulfil this requirement, one must adhere to the guidelines outlined in Annex II of OrderHFP 55/2023, of 24 January.

What additional details does Minerva offer during a new consultation if there is no abstention?

In the event of a non-abstention during the new Minerva consultation and the presence of a red flag, the consultation will exclusively present a description of the identified risks, without disclosing the identities of third parties involved.

Who should resolve the situation in case of CI risk if the decision-maker does not abstain?

If there is a conflict of interest and the decision-maker chooses not to abstain, it becomes the responsibility of the decision-maker's line manager to assess the conflict-of-interest risk.

This is in accordance with Article 61(2) of Regulation (EU, Euratom) 2018/1046, commonly referred to as “FR 2018,” which stipulates that:

When a conflict-of-interest risk arises concerning a member of staff from a national authority, the staff member must report the matter to their line manager.

The line manager is required to provide written confirmation if a conflict of interest is indeed present. In such cases, the relevant authority must ensure that individual involved ceases all activity related to the matter.

Additionally, Article 6 of Order 55/2023, mandates that the line manager of the decision-maker must make a reasoned decision, either to:

• Approve the decision-maker’s participation in the procedure despite the red flag.
• Instruct the decision-maker identified in the red flag to abstain from the procedure.

What elements are considered for the resolution of the CI risk?

In general, the line manager's evaluation encompasses several key elements, including the supplementary details furnished by Minerva concerning the risk description, the decision-maker’s areasoned objection to abstain from the procedure, and, where applicable, any report by the Anti-Fraud Committee.

Cuando interviene el Comité Antifraude y, en su caso, la Unidad especializada de asesoramiento en materia de CI. (UACI)

It does so when the operations manager, either by their own initiative or at the request of the respective line manager calls upon their expertise to report on the specific case under consideration. The Anti-Fraud Committee has the authority to seek advice from the IGAE’s specialised unit in this regard. The preparation of the report is expected to be completed within a two-day timeframe, although this period may extend to a maximum of four days if the aforementioned advice is sought.

The Anti-Fraud Committee can submit its consultation through the designated form available on the website of the Intervención General de la Administración del Estado assigned to the SCIAU.

What happens when the person affected by the CI risk decides not to continue with the procedure or the line manager decides to do so?

In cases where the individual affected by the conflict-of-interest risk decides not to proceed with he procedure or if the superior makes such a decision, in the event of the decision-maker abstaining, a reassessment of the conflict of interest risk must be conducted for the individual who assumes the decision-maker’s role in the procedure.

In cases where the line manager decides, based on reasoned judgement, that the decision-maker should abstain, the responsibility for documenting this decision on the CoFFEE app falls upon the operations manager. This documentation includes the reasoned allegation stating the absence of a conflict of interest, the details surrounding the abstention, the additional information sourced from Minerva, the Anti-Fraud Committee’s report, and the decision made by the line manager. This documentation is crucial for potential audits conducted by the relevant RRF audit authorities.

Furthermore, the operations manager must initiate a process to reevaluate the conflict-of-interest risk concerning the individual replacing the decision-maker who, in compliance with this procedure, has been removed from the process.

How should the operations manager act once the CI risk situation has been resolved?

If there is a risk of a conflict of interest (red flag) and the decision-maker concerned does not abstain, the procedure can still proceed with the operations manager acting accordingly.

If the decision-maker abstains, either when the red flag is identified or at the end of the process outlined in Article 6 of Order 55/2023, the operations manager must conduct a risk analysis of a potential replacement's conflict of interest.

The operations manager must submit the necessary documentation to CoFFEE. This includes a logical explanation of the absence of any conflicts of interest, the details of any instances of abstention, additional information supplied by Minerva, the Anti-Fraud Committee's report, and the decision made by their line manager. This submission is vital for any future audits conducted by the appropriate RRF audit authorities.

What does the presence of a black flag signify during the Minerva consultation?

It means there is no available information on the risk of conflict of interest among participants, as no data exists for this entity.

Teniendo en cuenta el análisis realizado a través de Minerva, no se ha encontrado la titularidad real de la persona jurídica solicitante, circunstancia que impide el análisis del conflicto de interés completo.

This does not imply the automatic suspension of the current procedure.

What to do if a black flag is displayed during a Minerva consultation.

The presence of a black flag in Minerva's report does not impede the ongoing procedure.

When a foreign entity lacks information on the actual ownership of a company, the AEAT will implement the information acquisition protocol that it has established with relevant organisations, notably the General Council of Notaries [Consejo General del Notariado].

Once received by AEAT, the information will be retained to be used in ex-post audits carried out by IGAE, who act as the RRF Control Authority. Additionally, it will be used for subsequent conflict of interest risk analyses requested by Minerva in relation to the company.

On the other hand, the entities responsible for awarding contracts and subsidies have the authority to demand that participants in the procedures furnish details regarding their current ownership. This information should be submitted to the contracting or grant-awarding body within five business days of receiving the information request.

If the requested information is acquired, the operations manager should conduct a fresh ex-ante assessment of a possible conflict of interest, specifying the genuine owners identified by the contracting or grant-awarding organisations rather than the bidder/applicant.