AGREEMENT
for the implementation of the Commission Decision of 7 June 2011 awarding a grant from the European Union Solidarity Fund to finance emergency measures to 
the Slovak Republic
The European Commission (hereinafter “the Commission”), represented by the Member of the Commission responsible for regional policy, Mr Johannes Hahn,
of the one part, and
the Slovak Republic, hereinafter called the ‘beneficiary State’,
of the other part,
have agreed as follows:
Article 1
Purpose
The European Union Solidarity Fund shall contribute to the financing of emergency operations following the flooding disasters of May – June 2010 in the Slovak Republic by means of a grant of EUR 20 430 841 awarded by the Commission, in accordance with the provisions of Commission Decision No C(2011)3762 of 7 June 2011 and of this Agreement.
Interest earned on the grant shall be treated as part of the grant.
Article 2
Location
The emergency operations referred to in Article 1 shall take place in the Slovak Republic in the region(s) directly affected by the disaster as referred to in the application by the beneficiary State.
Article 3
Implementation
Responsibility for selecting individual operations and implementing the grant under this Agreement shall lie with the beneficiary State, in compliance with the terms of this Agreement. The beneficiary State shall exercise this responsibility without prejudice to the Commission's responsibility for the implementation of the general budget of the European Union and in accordance with the provisions of the Financial Regulation applicable to shared management.
Article 4
Coordinating the implementation of the grant
For the beneficiary State, the body responsible for implementing the grant shall be the Ministry of Interior of the Slovak Republic.
Article5
Types of measure
The grant from the European Union Solidarity Fund shall contribute to the financing of operations under the following type of measure:
Immediate securing of preventive infrastructures:
repairs and maintenance of protective waterways dams damaged by flood, repairs and maintenance of damaged fortifications and objects at water flows, stabilization of damaged banks of water flows, clearance of channels of water flows by removing of gravel bars and obstacles, repairs and maintenance of water pumping stations of inner water.
Article 6
Financial control by the beneficiary State
1.	Without prejudice to the Commission's responsibility for implementing the general budget of the European Union, the beneficiary State shall take responsibility in the first instance for the financial control of the grant.
2.	The beneficiary State shall be responsible for the efficiency and correctness of management and implementation and in particular for:
2.1.	ensuring that bodies taking part in the management and implementation of the grant maintain a separate accounting system allowing the identification of all transactions relating to the grant and the corresponding supporting documents backing up each expenditure item;
2.2.	ensuring the correctness of operations financed under the grant, particularly by implementing internal controls in keeping with the principles of sound financial management.
3.	The management and control system of the beneficiary State shall ensure a sufficient audit trail in particular for:
3.1.	reconciling the statement justifying the expenditure sent to the Commission with the individual statements of expenditure and the supporting documents relating thereto held at the various administrative levels and by bodies or undertakings implementing the operations;
3.2.	checking the allocation and transfer of EU funds.
4.	The beneficiary State shall organise checks on operations, on a representative sampling basis, with a view to examining selectively, on the basis of a risk analysis, whether the management and control systems introduced are operating properly and checking the expenditure declarations made at the various levels concerned.
Article 7
Financial control undertaken by the Commission
1.	Commission officials or other servants may undertake documentary and on-the-spot checks, in particular on a sampling basis, in relation to operations financed by the Fund to verify that the management and control systems are operating properly, giving a minimum of one working day’s notice. The Commission shall give notice to the beneficiary State concerned with a view to obtaining all the assistance necessary. Officials or servants of the beneficiary State may take part in such checks.
2.	The Commission may require the beneficiary State to carry out an on-the-spot check to verify the correctness of one or more operations. Commission officials or servants may take part in such checks.
3.	For three years from the date on which the assistance is definitively closed the competent authorities of the beneficiary State shall keep available for the Commission or the European Court of Auditors all the supporting documents relating to expenditure on the measures concerned. This period shall be interrupted either in the case of legal proceedings or at the duly motivated request of the Commission.
Article 8
Implementation report
1.	The beneficiary State shall send the Commission an implementation report not later than six months after expiry of the time limit specified in Article 4 of the grant Decision. The report shall present a statement justifying the expenditure disbursed by the beneficiary State and charged to the grant awarded by the Commission. The statement shall contain:
–	a list of operations in accordance with Article 5, classified by type of operation; the total amount of the expenditure actually incurred and disbursed and the corresponding amount of financing from the European Union Solidarity Fund allocated to the whole set of operations;
–	the bodies responsible for implementing each operation.
2.	The report shall detail the preventive measures introduced or proposed by the beneficiary State in order to limit damage and to avoid, to the extent possible, a recurrence of similar disasters.
3.	The report shall also contain a statement by the beneficiary State affirming that:
–	the operations detailed in the statement justifying expenditure have not received a contribution from another EU or international source of financing;
–	the expenditure referred to in Article 4 of the award Decision is not covered by compensation for or reimbursement of damage provided by a third party;
–	where appropriate, the procedures necessary for obtaining compensation or reimbursement from a third party for damage suffered have been initiated.
Article 9
Statement of validity
On closure of the assistance the beneficiary State shall present to the Commission a statement, drawn up by a person or service functionally independent of the body responsible for implementation, summarising the conclusions of the checks carried out and pronouncing on the validity of the expenditure declared and the legality and correctness of the operations concerned.
An indicative model and a guidance note for the statement are set out in Annexes II and III.
Done at [Brussels], [date], in duplicate.
For the Commission	For the Slovak Republic
The Member of the Commission	The Minister of Interior 
responsible for Regional Policy	of the Slovak Republic
Johannes Hahn	Daniel Lipšic

ANNEX I
NATIONAL AUTHORITIES RESPONSIBLE FOR THE COORDINATION AND IMPLEMENTATION OF THE GRANT
1.	Body responsible for coordinating implementation (specified in Article 4 of the Agreement):
1.1.	Name: Ministry of Interior of the Slovak Republic
1.2.	Address: Pribinova 2, 812 72 Bratislava
2.	Bodies responsible for the implementation of the grant
2.1.	Name: Ministry of Environment of the Slovak Republic
2.1.1.	Address: Nám. Ľ. Štúra 1, 812 35 Bratislava
2.1.2.	Types of measure under its responsibility: 
- repairs and maintenance of protective waterways dams damaged by flood, repairs and maintenance of damaged fortifications and objects at water flows, stabilization of damaged banks of water flows, clearance of channels of water flows by removing of gravel bars and obstacles, repairs and maintenance of water pumping stations of inner water. Repairs and maintenance were carried out during flooding security operations and within planned repairs and maintenance. 
2.1.3.	Location: Entire territory affected by the floods
2.1.4.	Region: Self-governing region of Žilina, self-governing region of Trenčin, self-governing region of Trnava, self-governing region of Nitra, self-governing region of Banska Bystrica, self-governing region of Košice, self-governing region of Prešov, self-governing region of Bratislava 

ANNEX II
INDICATIVE MODEL FOR THE STATEMENT TO BE ISSUED ON CLOSURE OF ASSISTANCE
To the European Commission, Directorate-General ......................................
INTRODUCTION
1.	I, the undersigned, ....................................... (name, title and service), have examined the implementation report on ............. (title of assistance and period covered)
SCOPE OF THE CONTROLS
2.	I hereby declare I have undertaken the checks in accordance with the provisions of the Agreement ..... I planned and performed the examination with a view to obtaining reasonable assurance that the implementation report, including the statement of expenditure actually incurred is free of material misstatement ...................... (Describe briefly the practical steps taken for the execution of the control).
OBSERVATIONS
3.	The scope of the examination has been limited by the following:
a)	………………………………
b)	…………………………………
c)	…………………………….. etc.
(Indicate any limitations to the examination, for example systemic problems, management weaknesses, lack of audit trail, lack of supporting documentation, cases under legal proceedings, etc.; estimate the amounts of expenditure affected by these limitations and the corresponding Community aid).
4.	The examination, together with the conclusions of any other national or Community controls to which I have had access, revealed a low/high frequency of errors. Any reported errors have been satisfactorily treated by the management authorities and they do not appear to affect the amount of the Community aid payable, with the following exceptions:
a)	………………………………
b)	…………………………………
c)	…………………………….. etc.
(Indicate the errors which have not been satisfactorily treated, and for each case, the possible systemic character and extent of the problem and the amounts of Community aid which appear to be affected).

CONCLUSION
If there are no limitations to the examination, the frequency of errors found is low and all problems have been satisfactorily treated:
5.	Having performed the examination and in the light of the conclusions of other national or Community controls to which I have had access, I hereby declare that the implementation report, including the statement of expenditure actually incurred and paid, fairly presents the expenditure made in accordance with the regulatory provisions in force, the decision and the Agreement.
If there are certain limitations to the examination but the frequency of errors is not high, or if there are problems which have not been satisfactorily treated.
6.	Except for the matters referred to at point 3 above and the errors which do not appear to have been satisfactorily treated as referred to at point 4, it is my opinion, based on the examination and the conclusions of any other national or Community controls to which I have had access, that the implementation report, including the declaration of expenditure actually incurred and paid, fairly presents the expenditure made in accordance with the regulatory provisions in force, the decision and the Agreement.
If there are major limitations to the examination or the frequency of errors found is high, even if the reported errors have been satisfactorily treated:
Having regard to the matters referred to at point 3 above and/or the number of errors referred to at point 4 above, I am unable to express an opinion on the implementation report, including the statement of expenditure actually incurred and paid.
Date
Signature

ANNEX III
GUIDANCE DOCUMENT CONCERNING THE STATEMENT OF VALIDITY UNDER ARTICLE 9 OF THE IMPLEMENTATION AGREEMENT
The objective of this document is to provide guidance as to what information should be included in the validity statement in order to enable the Commission services to draw a conclusion on the regularity of the grants paid.
Information to be provided in the validity statement
Article 9 of the Implementation Agreements provides that a statement of validity shall be presented to the Commission on closure of the assistance, drawn up by a person or service functionally independent of the body responsible for implementation (“independent body”), summarising the conclusions of the checks carried out and pronouncing on the validity of the expenditure declared and the legality and correctness of the operations concerned.
Set out below are details of the information which in the Commission’s view should be included in the closure statement or contained in an accompanying report.
(1)	Details of independent body making the validity statement
Name, title, service and further information necessary to show the functional independence from the implementing service.
(2)	Scope
Indicate the operations and the total amount of expenditure which are subject to this statement (make reference to the relevant section of the implementation report).
(3)	Controls carried out at implementation level
Details of bodies which have carried out financial control measures at the level of the implementing services. Description of material irregularities and malfunctions established by these services and of the remedial measures taken.
(4)	Summary of audits carried out
Details of bodies which have carried out audits, including independent audit services, external services (e.g.: national Court of Auditors, European Commission, European Court of Auditors).
Description of the audit work carried out:
–	type of audit (e.g.: systems audit, sample checks of operations);
–	date of the audit;
–	scope and methodology;
–	with regard to sample checks of operations: amount of expenditure checked and percentage rate in relation to the total expenditure declared;
–	principal findings and conclusions.
(5)	Work undertaken by the independent body (indicative list)
Description of:
–	own audit work (e.g.: systems audit, sample checks of operations)
–	review of audit work carried out by other audit services
–	audit of closure procedure of implementing authorities.
(6)	Limitations to checks carried out by independent body
Indicate any matters which have limited the scope of the work of the independent body. 
(7)	Findings of the independent body
Description of findings (e.g. systemic weaknesses with regard of the effectiveness of management and control systems, lack of audit trail, lack of supporting documents, legal proceedings, inadequate sampling procedures or insufficient independence of auditors). The amounts of expenditure related to errors or irregularities should be indicated. The overall error rate should be indicated.
Provide confirmation that all expenditure related to errors or irregularities has been excluded from the final expenditure statement. 
(8)	Conclusion
The indicative model of the validity statement envisages a qualified opinion where there are certain limitations to the control examination or where there are problems which have not been satisfactorily treated, and no opinion if there are important limitations to the control examination or the frequency of error found is high. In general, the independent body should seek to ensure that necessary measures are taken before closure to enable an unqualified opinion to be given.
(a)	Limitations to the control examination
The independent body has to determine whether they are of such importance that no opinion can be given, or whether they are of lesser importance but still require a qualified opinion to be given, or whether they are of such minor importance that no qualification is necessary.
Sufficient information should be given in the validity statement to support the conclusion. By way of indication:
Limitations resulting in no opinion could include:
–	failure to carry out an audit of the effectiveness of the management and control system, including an adequate number of sample checks of the operations concerned
–	failure to control one or more of the main implementing bodies (in case that there are several implementing bodies),
–	serious weaknesses with regard to the effectiveness of the management and control systems for which no remedial action has been taken,
–	lack of an audit trail.
Limitations resulting in a qualified opinion could include:
–	failure to carry out systematic risk analysis in connection with the selection of sample checks,
–	failure to ensure the representativeness of the sample,
–	inadequate quality of audit reports,
–	lack of independence of auditors.
The amount of expenditure related to the qualification or to the absence of an opinion should be estimated.
(b)	Problems which have not been satisfactorily treated
Explanation should be provided on cases of errors or irregularities or systemic problems which have not been satisfactorily treated. The amounts of expenditure affected should be indicated. The independent body should give a qualified opinion or no opinion, as appropriate.
(c)	High frequency of errors/irregularities
Where the independent body concludes that there is a high frequency of errors, no opinion should be given even if the individual cases have been satisfactorily treated. This is because a high level of errors indicates systemic problems in the management and control bodies. The independent body should explain about the reasons for concluding on a high frequency of errors, and about the details of the errors/irregularities identified.