FINANCIAL CORRECTION DECISION No 21

[email protected] 14.11.2023 No 11.1-13/23/1312 DECISION FINANCIAL CORRECTION DECISION No 21 Project: Est-Lat 55, Improvement of sailing infrastructure and yacht harbours network building in Estonia and Latvia (ESTLAT harbours) Lead partner: Kurzeme planning region Project partner: Saarte Liinid Ltd According to the Guidelines to Financial Corrections for the Interreg V-A Estonia-Latvia programme 2014-2020 Chapter 2 and based on the 2014-2020 Structural Assistance Act, adopted by the Parliament of the Republic of Estonia on 13 June 2018, subsection 6 of the paragraph 54 the Managing Authority decides: 5% of the costs of the contract ”Ringsu sadama väikelaevasadama laiendus“ of the project partner Saarte Liinid Ltd are ineligible; and 5% of the costs of the contract “Munalaiu sadama väikelaevasadama laiendus II“ of the project partner Saarte Liinid Ltd are ineligible. 1. Public procurement of the ”Ringsu sadama väikelaevasadama laiendus“ Circumstances The project partner, AS Saarte Liinid (hereinafter the project partner or the Contracting Authority) carried out public procurement No 199174. It was an open procedure through the public procurement register “Ringsu sadama väikelaevasadama laiendus“ that was launched on 06.07.2018. As a result of the procurement, the project partner has concluded contract 2ERF/2018 (hereinafter the Procurement contract) with the provider Osaühing Kaurits (hereinafter the Contractor) on 31.08.2018. The costs of the works were € 664 116.70 excluding VAT (includes the Contracting Authority's reserve of 5%) and the implementation of the procurement contract was 270 days from the conclusion of the contract. During the system audit on 26.04.2023 (Audit No JKS-49/2022), the Audit Authority identified the following violation of the provisions of the Public Procurement Act in the procurement: referring to standards without the mark ‘or equivalent’. Lõkke 4 / 10122 Tallinn / Estonia / + 372 663 8200 / [email protected] / www.rtk.ee/ Reg. code: 70007340 Construction project explanatory notes contain various references to standards and guidelines that do not have the indication ‘or equivalent’. For example:  In the document “RIN171_PP_VK-3-01_v02_seletuskiri_NP_1723810_2018-02-06”: Hoone tehnosüsteemide RYL2002“ Ehitustööde üldised kvaliteedinõuded. Osa 1“ RIL 77-2013 “Pinnasesse ja vette paigaldatavad plasttorud. Paigaldusjuhend”, „Maa sisse ja vette paigaldatavad plasttorud“; RIL 194-1992 „ Putkikaivanto-ohje“; MAARYL 2010 “Ehitustööde kvaliteedi üldnõuded . Hoone ehituse pinnasetööd“; EVS-EN 1610:2015 „Äravoolu- ja kanalisatsioonitorustike ehitamine ja katsetamine“, „Dreenide ja kanalisatsioonitorustike ehitamine ja katsetamine“; EVS-EN 1610:2007; EVS 921 „ Veevarustuse välisvõrk“; EN12201; EN1340; EVS-EN 13598-2:2009; EVS-EN-124; EVS-EN 61386; EVS-EN60423; EVS-EN 1338; InfraRYL 2006 „Infrarakentamisen yleiset laatuvaatimukset“;  In the document “RIN171_PP_EL-3-01_v02_Seletuskiri_2018-02-08”: EE 10421629‐JV ST 5‐6:2001"0,4 kV kaabelliinid";  In the document: “RIN171_PP_EL-5-01_EL-10-JK-U3-U4-skeem_2017-10-16”: EVS-EN 60439-1; EVS-EN 60439-3;  In the document “RIN171_PP_VK-8-01_Toode-mahtude-loend-NP1723810_2017-11- 01”: EVS-EN 12201; EVS-EN 124;  In the document “RIN171_PP_TV-3-01_v02_Seletuskiri_2018-05-16“: EVS 932-2017 Ehitusprojekt; EVS 924-2015 Vesiehitised sisevetel. This is not a final list, and references to various standards and guidelines are also included in the construction project and its annexes. 2. The public procurement of the “Munalaiu sadama väikelaevasadama laiendus II” Circumstances The public procurement of the “Munalaiu sadama väikelaevasadama laiendus II” with reference number 198843 was launched on 20.06.2018 with a deadline for submission of tenders on 20.07.2018. As a result of the procurement, on 24.08.2018, the Contracting Authority concluded contract No. 1 ERF/2018 (hereinafter the Procurement contract) with the bidder OÜ BauEst (hereinafter the successful bidder or contractor). The total cost of the works was 341,206 euros excluding VAT (includes the customer's reserve of 5%) and the execution time of the contract was 270 days from the conclusion of the contract. During the system audit on 26.04.2023 (Audit No JKS-49/2022), the Audit Authority identified the following violation of the provisions of the Public Procurement Act in the procurement: referring to standards without the mark ‘or equivalent’. Construction project explanatory notes contain various references to standards and guidelines that do not have the indication ‘or equivalent’. For example in the document „B643_PP_EK_3-01_v02_Seletuskiri“:  EVS-EN 12350 - Vajalikud katsetused ja uuringud kasutatud betooni survetugevuse klassi hindamiseks;  EVS-EN 12390 - Vajalikud katsetused ja uuringud kasutatud betooni survetugevuse klassi hindamiseks;  EVS-EN 12504 - Vajalikud katsetused ja uuringud kasutatud betooni survetugevuse klassi hindamiseks;  EVS-EN 206 “Betoon. Spetsifitseerimine, toimivus, tootmine ja vastavus”;  EVS-EN 206-1:2007;  EVS-ENV 13670-1:2010 Betoonkonstruktsioonide ehitamine. Osa 1: Üldsätted; 1. klassi nõuded;  BY 47 Betonirakentamisen laatuohjeet.  TarindiRYL2010 p. 411 Raketisetööd;  TarindiRYL2010 p. 412 Sarrustamine;  TarindiRYL2010 p. 413 Betoonimine;  TarindiRYL2010 p. 421;  EVS-EN 12620:2005;  EVS-EN-ISO 5817:2004 - Betooniteraste keevitustööd tuleb teha vastavalt klassi WC nõuetele;  EVS-EN 1504 - Tooted ja süsteemid betoonkonstruktsioonide kaitseks ja parandamiseks;  BLY 5 Betonilattioiden tuotantomenetelmät;  BÜ 4:2010 Betooni pinnad;  BY 41 Betonirakenteiden korjausohjeet;  BY 45/BLY 7 Betonilattiat 2000 (koos BY 48 ja BY 49);  EVS-ENV 13670-1:2010 Tolerantside arvväärtused;  DIN 53521;  DIN 30677;  Määratlused, nõuded, kvaliteedikontroll ja vastavuse hindamine;  EE 10421629-JV ST 5-6:2001"0,4 kV kaabelliinid" - Kaablite vahekaugused;  Kõik ehitustööd tuleb teha vastavuses allpool toodud dokumentidega:  EVS 921:1024 Veevarustuse välisvõrk;  EVS 848:2013 Väliskanalisatsioonivõrk;  EVS 812-6:2012 Ehitiste tuleohutus. Osa 6: Tuletõrje veevarustus;  LVI-RYL 2002; - RIL 77 Maa sisse ja vette paigaldatavad plasttorud. Paigaldusjuhend; Maa RYL 2000 Ehitiste üldised kvaliteedinõuded. Pinnasetööd ja alustarindid, üldkehtivad reeglid ja tavad;  IHO S-44. This is not a final list, and references to various standards and guidelines are also included in the construction project and its annexes. The Managing Authority, before making financial correction decision, considered the following circumstances: According to the Estonia - Latvia programme 2014-2020 Manual point 5.3.4 each partner organisation is responsible for ensuring that EU and national public procurement rules are respected and that all contracts comply with the basic principles of transparency, non- discrimination and equal treatment as defined in the EC Treaty and the Commission Interpretative Communication on the Community law applicable to contract awards below the EU thresholds. According to Annex 6, point 2.3.3 of the Guidelines to Financial Corrections, if there is an irregularity related to non-compliance with the general procurement rules, specifically when the Estonian partner, acting as a contracting authority, fails to adhere to the general principles of procurement for a service, goods, or building works with an estimated value equal to or exceeding the simple procurement threshold, a financial correction rate of 5, 10, 25, or 100 percent may be applied. The correction rate depends on the severity of the violation in accordance with the financial correction principles in the Guidelines to Financial Corrections for the Programme Chapter 2 and European Commission Decision of 14.5.2019, C(2019) 3452, “Guidelines for determining financial corrections to be made to expenditure financed by the Union under shared management for non-compliance with the rules on public procurement” (hereinafter the EC Guidelines). In accordance with the provisions in subsection 1 of § 87 and § 88 of the Public Procurement Act, when preparing the technical description, the Contracting Authority must, if possible, take as a basis the norms in force in the relevant field. If there is no technical norm in the relevant field, generally recognized standards and technical recognitions are taken as a basis for the preparation of the technical description of the subject of the procurement contract in accordance with the order presented in points 1-7 of subsection 2 of § 88 of the Public Procurement Act. The Public Procurement Act makes no distinction regarding standards where it would be acceptable to leave out the indication ‘or equivalent’. According to both the public procurement directives and the Public Procurement Act, it is obligatory to indicate the reference ‘or equivalent’ when mentioning any standard. The third subsection of § 88 of the Public Procurement Act stipulates that every reference that the Contracting Authority makes in the technical specifications to any basis mentioned in subsection two of this section is accompanied by the words ‘or equivalent.’ It is an explicit obligation; in which case the legislator has not provided for exceptions to deviate from its compliance or to interpret the content of the obligation in an expansive manner. This applies even if compliance with the standard is necessary for carrying out a specific task, providing a service, or conducting construction work as required by another legal act regulating the relevant field. In addition to the Public Procurement Act, the obligation to add the ‘or equivalent’ remark is stipulated in Article 42(3)(b) of the Directive 2014/24/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council: “by reference to technical specifications and, in order of preference, to national standards transposing European standards, European Technical Assessments, common technical specifications, international standards, other technical reference systems established by the European standardisation bodies or - when any of those do not exist - national standards, national technical approvals or national technical specifications relating to the design, calculation and execution of the works and use of the supplies; each reference shall be accompanied by the words ‘or equivalent’;”. The rules regarding the preparation of technical specifications, including standards, are also explained in the European Commission's “Guidance for practitioners on the avoidance of the most common errors in projects funded by the European Structural and Investment Funds”/ “Riigihanked. Praktilisi näpunäiteid kõige levinumate vigade vältimiseks Euroopa struktuuri- ja investeerimisfondidest rahastavate projektide puhul“. By looking at the instructions on pages 34- 35, 64, 78-79 and 90, it can be concluded explicitly that the requirement of a standard without the remark ‘or equivalent’ is not acceptable. In Procurement No 199174 and 198843, the Contracting Authority has partially failed to fulfil the condition stipulated in subsection 3 of § 88 of the Public Procurement Act to add the remark ‘or equivalent’ to the standards listed in the base documents of the works referred to in the technical description. The Managing Authority states that in construction procurement with detailed documentation, specific construction materials, production methods and instructions, it may not always be possible to describe all requirements and conditions without referencing a specific standard or guide. In such a situation, according to the subparagraph 3 of § 88 of the Public Procurement Act, the Contracting Authority may also name specific standards in the technical description/specification but is obliged to add the words “or equivalent”. In this case, the Contracting Authority has not followed the aforementioned requirement and has not added the required remark. The Managing Authority is of the opinion that the bidders were not able to clearly understand the admissibility of bidding on the basis of equivalent standards for all standards from the basic documents of the public procurement, as there was no corresponding indication in these standards. According to the subparagraph 7 of § 88 of the Public Procurement Act, the technical description must ensure equal conditions for all companies to submit a tender and must not create objectively unreasonable obstacles in the opening of public procurement to competition. When preparing the technical description, the Contracting Authority has a broad discretion. However, it must also follow certain rules and limits when using this discretion. In other words, when making its decisions, in addition to the special regulation, the Contracting Authority must also ground its choices on the general principles of organizing public procurement (Public Procurement Act § 3). According to § 2 of the Public Procurement Act the Contract Authority must ensure the transparent, practical and economic use of the Contracting Authority’s funds, equal treatment of persons and effective use of competition in public procurement. Based on § 3 of the Public Procurement Act the Contracting Authority treats all persons equally and makes certain that all restrictions and criteria imposed on the persons are proportional, relevant and reasoned in relation to the purpose of the public procurement. These principles are especially important in the preparation of technical description/specifications, considering the risk of discrimination related to the selection and wording of technical description/specifications (EC C-368/10, p. 62). Technical description/specifications must enable public procurement to be open to competition and must be prepared in such a way that they do not artificially reduce competition with requirements favouring a certain company (recital 74 and subsection 1 of Article 18 of the Directive 2014/24/EU and recital 83 and subsection 1 second paragraph of Article 36 of the Directive 20014/25/EU). In public procurement, it must be possible to submit offers based on various technical solutions, standards and technical specifications in use on the market. Thus, the technical description/specifications must be prepared in such a way that they do not artificially reduce competition with requirements favouring a certain company, by describing the main characteristics of the goods, services or construction works normally offered by that company. When referring to their national standard, Contracting Authorities should also consider tenders based on other equivalent systems. The purpose of allowing equivalent solutions and instructions is to make procurement more open to competition. Thus, referring to the European standard or, in its absence, to the standard of its own country, the Contracting Authority must consider and allow the submission of other offers based on equivalent systems. As different organizations may do things differently and operate according to different codes of conduct, naming specific standards and guidelines without ‘or equivalent’ may limit the range of tenderers. The Contracting Authority should not assume that in the absence of a proper reference, the persons interested in participating in the tender themselves are aware of the option to propose equivalent solutions and instructions in their offer. There is a possibility that the circle of persons participating in the procurement could have been wider, if the procurer had enabled to offer equivalent solutions aligning with the standards outlined in the detailed plan contained in the technical description of the procurement. In Regulation No 97 of the Minister of Economy and Infrastructure of July 17, 2015 “Requirements for construction projects¹”, standards are referred to in various sections (e.g., point 2 of subsection of § 4, point 1 of subsection 1 of § 18), but it is not added that these standards should be EVS, EVS -EN, EE, RIL, MAARYL, RYL, InfraRYL 2006 or other specific standards. Also, the Building Code does not contain references to EVS or other specific standards. The Contracting Authority has not provided objective reasons for the need to demand the specific standards mentioned in the basic documents of the works without adding the remark ‘or equivalent’. The Contracting Authority has stipulated in point 5 of the technical description that the delivered products and materials must be at least equivalent to the products and materials described in the project, which only covers the product standards. The Managing Authority is of the opinion that this sentence does not apply to all other standards, instructions and norms contained in the procurement's basic documents. It does not matter whether it is a procurement below the international threshold or above the international threshold, the above-mentioned standards without the marking “or equivalent” are restrictive of competition in both cases. From the point of equivalence allowed in point 5.1 of the technical description, “The delivered products and materials must be at least equivalent to the products and materials described in the project”, it only covers the product standards. As a result of the above, the requirements of subsections 3 and 7 of § 88 of the Public Procurement Act have been violated. Taking into account the number of different standards and guidelines and the volume of work covered by them, it cannot be assumed that they concern an insignificant part of the contract or are only formal. The impact of this irregularity on the resources of European Union cannot be excluded. Due to the nature of the irregularity, it is not possible to precisely quantify the financial impact as it is not possible to ascertain what the price of potential tenderers’, had these conditions been stated in the procurement documents. According to the EC Guidelines Section 2 point 11 setting selection criteria not proportionate to the subject-matter of the contract could result with financial correction in the amount of 5%, 10% or 25% of the expenditure of the contract, depending on the seriousness of the violation. The type of irregularity No 11 of the EC Guidelines describes situations where criteria or conditions that, despite not being discriminatory on the basis of national/regional/local preferences, still lead to restricting access for economic operators to specific public procurement procedure. In addition, type of irregularity No 11 specifies the cases where specific trademarks/brands/ standards are required, as it was in the current case, without allowing for an equivalent trademark/brand by not using the compulsory quote ‘or equivalent’. For the cases in which restrictive criteria/conditions/specifications were applied, but still a minimum level of competition was ensured, i.e. a number of economic operators submitted tenders that were accepted and fulfilled the selection criteria, the correction is 5%. In the tender of “Ringsu sadama väikelaevasadama laiendus”, 3 offers were submitted, of which 2 were recognized as appropriate. Therefore 5% of financial correction applies. The total ineligible costs (EUR): Expenditure Total cost of Total cost ERDF Self- Total Ineligible Ineligible budget line the contract certified support financing ineligible ERDF self- excluding support financing VAT Infrastructure 664 116.70 555 042.75 471 786.34 83 256.41 27 752.15 23 589.27 4 162.88 and works In the tender of “Munalaiu sadama väikelaevasadama laiendus II“, 3 offers were submitted, of which 2 were recognized as appropriate. Therefore 5% of financial correction applies. The total ineligible costs (EUR): Expenditure Total cost of Total cost ERDF Self- Total Ineligible Ineligible budget line the contract certified support financing ineligible ERDF self- excluding support financing VAT Infrastructure 341 206.00 328 154.25 278 931.11 49 223.14 16 407.72 13 946.54 2 461.18 and works Argumentations and statements The Lead Partner does not agree with the financial correction decision and is of the opinion that the project partner did not violate PPA § 88 subsection 7 with referring to standards and guidelines. Project partner finds that standards provide relevant and sufficient information to interested and diligent entrepreneurs for preparing and submitting tenders and ensuring that tenders are comparable. The Project partner’s opinion that there are no reasonings and/or supporting proof, from which it could be concluded, that cited standards and guidelines have objectively unjustified restrictive effect to competition. This could only be said, if the purpose of the procurement procedures could be achieved, following more lenient requirements. The Management Authority is of the opinion that these standards cover a much wider area than just "products and materials", with a large number of them also covering construction in general. Nor can it be said that the required standards cover a small or insignificant part of the work in comparison with the work carried out. A general condition of the ETÜ may be relevant ex-post, for example in the case of practical substitution of a single product or material. It is certainly not equivalent in terms of assurance to using the words “or equivalent” for a significant list of standards in the tender documents, nor does it allow the bidder to assume that he can use equivalent working procedures and solutions. We consider that the case law cited does not tend to support the beneficiary's argument. Finally, the Managing Authority took into account the number of tenderers when determining the financial correction decision. Therefore, a correction rate of 5% applies. Legal basis of the financial correction 1. Structural Assistance Act 2014-2020 According to the Article 54 subsection 6 of the Structural Assistance Act 2014-2020 a financial correction decision shall be based on the procedure for making a financial correction decision established in the ETC programme or in the procedure for making a financial correction decision, established on the basis of subsection 7 of the same section, while pursuant to the ETC programme the making of the financial correction decision is based on the procedure established nationally in the states participating in the programme. 2. The Guidelines to Financial Corrections The Guidelines to Financial Corrections for the Estonia – Latvia Programme 2014-2020 establishes a range of corrections of up to 5%, 10%, 25% and 100% that are applied to the expenditure of a contract. They take into account the seriousness of the irregularity and the principle of proportionality. These rates of corrections are applied when it is not possible to quantify precisely the financial implications for the contract in question. 3. The Public Procurement Act of Estonia The Public Procurement Act’s § 3 subsection 1 states that the Contracting Authority or the contracting entity acts transparently, verifiably and proportionately, when carrying out public procurement. The subsection 2 of § 3 stipulates that, the contracting authority makes certain that all restrictions and criteria imposed on the persons are proportional, relevant and reasoned in relation to the purpose of the public procurement. The subsection 1 of § 87 states that ‘technical specifications’ means the following, established by the contracting authority or entity for the purpose of describing the subject matter of the public contract using the terminology and the level of accuracy understandable to persons engaged in the respective field: 1) list of the characteristics of and requirements applicable to the supplies or services that constitute the subject matter of a public supply contract or a public service contract; 2) body of the characteristics of and requirements applicable to the works that constitute the subject matter of a public works contract. The subsection 2 of § 88, upon drawing up the technical specifications, the contracting authority may rely on the following in the following order: 1) the European standard transposed as the Estonian standard; 2) the European standard; 3) a European technical approval, which has been granted by an approval body designated by a Member State of the European Union and which certifies that, based on the technical point of view, the product is suitable for the prescribed purpose in terms of its characteristics, which correspond to the main requirements established for works, as well as in terms of its features and the prescribed conditions of application or use; 4) a common technical specification, which has been established in accordance with the rules recognised by a Member State of the European Union and published in the Official Journal of the European Union; 5) an international standard; 6) a technical reference system established by a European standardisation body; 7) the original Estonian standard, Estonian technical approval or Estonian technical specifications relating to the design, calculation, and execution of works or use of products. Based on subsection 3 of § 88, every reference that the Contracting Authority makes in the technical specifications to any ground specified in subsection 2 of this section as a criterion of the conformity of a tender with the technical specifications is accompanied by the words ‘or equivalent’. According to the subsection 7 of § 88 technical specifications must ensure that the conditions for the submission of a tender are equal for all tenderers and must not have the effect of creating unjustified obstacles to the opening up of public procurement to competition. 4. The Common Provisions Regulation According to Article 143(2) of the Regulation No 1303/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2013, the Member States shall in the first instance be responsible for investigating irregularities and for making the financial corrections required and pursuing recoveries. In the case of a systemic irregularity, the Member State shall extend its investigation to cover all operations potentially affected. 5. Protection of the European Communities financial interests Article 4(1) of the European Union Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2988/95 on of 18 December 1995 stipulates that any irregularity shall involve withdrawal of the wrongly obtained advantage. Point d) of Article 5(1) of the same regulation stipulates that intentional irregularities or those caused by negligence may lead to the following administrative penalties: total or partial removal of an advantage granted by Community rules, even if the operator wrongly benefited from only a part of that advantage. According to Article 160(1) of the Regulation (EU) No 2018/1046 all contracts financed in whole or in part by the budget shall respect the principles of transparency, proportionality, equal treatment and non-discrimination and according to the point 2 of Article 160 all contracts shall be put out to competition on the broadest possible basis. 6. Programme Manual for the Estonia - Latvia Programme 2014-2020 According to point 5.3.4 of the Programme Manual of the Estonia - Latvia programme 2014-2020 each partner organisation is responsible for ensuring that EU and national public procurement rules are respected and that all contracts comply with the basic principles of transparency, non- discrimination and equal treatment as defined in the EC Treaty and the Commission Interpretative Communication on the Community law applicable to contract awards below the EU thresholds. 7. Programme Manual Annex 6. Guidelines to Financial Corrections According to the Programme Manual Annex 6. Guidelines to Financial Corrections Chapter 2.3.3 Financial correction in case of irregularity related to non-compliance with the general rules on procurement when the Estonian partner is a contracting authority for the purposes of the procurement, when Estonian beneficiary or partner is a contracting authority for the purposes of the public procurement, and the estimated value of a service, goods or building works is equal to or in excess of simple procurement threshold has violated the obligation to comply with the general principles of procurement, the financial correction rate of 5, 10, 25 or 100 percent may be applied depending on the severity of the violation by using the financial correction principles according to the EC Guidelines. According to the Programme Manual Annex 6. Guidelines to Financial Corrections Chapter 2.5 Repayment to the Managing Authority, when MA, JS, FC detect an error in expenditure that has already been paid out to the project, the programme can deduct the amount from the next project progress report. In cases where the amount cannot be corrected by deducting it from the next project progress report, LP is required to repay the amount to the programme, as specified in the financial correction decision within 60 calendar days as of the date of entry into force of the financial correction decision in the indicated amount and date. 8. Subsidy Contract Article 1 of the Subsidy Contract stipulates that the partners should also follow the EU and national principles on protection of environment, sustainable development, equal opportunities, non- discrimination. Point 2 of Article 3 of the Subsidy Contract regulates that the Lead Partner and Project Partner shall implement the project with the requisite care, efficiency, transparency and diligence, in line with best practice in the field concerned and in compliance with this Contract. For this purpose, the Lead Partner and Project Partner shall mobilise all the financial, human and material resources required for full implementation of the project as specified in the approved application. DECISION 1. Based on the 2014-2020 Structural Assistance Act, adopted by the Parliament of the Republic of Estonia on 13 June 2018, and Guidelines to Financial Corrections for the Estonia - Latvia Programme 2014-2020, the Managing Authority decides to apply: 5% of the costs of the contract ”Ringsu sadama väikelaevasadama laiendus“ of the project partner Saarte Liinid Ltd are ineligible and  5% of the costs of the contract “Munalaiu sadama väikelaevasadama laiendus II“ of the project partner Saarte Liinid Ltd are ineligible. 2. Financial correction to the Saarte Liinid Ltd is 5% of the contract of the Osaühing Kaurits. Total certified costs were €555 042.75, out of which €471 786.34 is ERDF support and €83 256.41 is self-financing. Total certified ineligible amount is €27 752.15 out of which €23 589.27 is ERDF support and €4 162.88 is self-financing. Financial correction to the Saarte Liinid Ltd is 5% of the contract of the OÜ BauEst. Total certified costs were €328 154.25, out of which €278 931.11 is ERDF support and €49 223.14 is self-financing. Total certified ineligible amount is €16 407.72, out of which €13 946.54 is ERDF support and €2 461.18 is self-financing. The ERDF support €37 535.81 must be repaid to the Programme. 3. The Lead Partner Kurzeme planning region is required to repay the ERDF support within 60 calendar days from the receipt of this financial correction decision. 4. Repayment of the assistance has to be made as follows: Beneficiary: Ministry of Finance of the Republic of Estonia Bank information: SEB Bank EE891010220034796011 (SWIFT: EEUHEE2X) Swedbank EE932200221023778606 (SWIFT: HABAEE2X) Luminor Bank EE701700017001577198 (SWIFT: NDEAEE2X) Reference number: 2800045768 Please mark for payment for explanation “EE-LV Programme 2014-2020 FCD No 21”. In case the Kurzeme planning region is not able to repay the assistance within the specified period, the repayment may be postponed in compliance with chapter 2.6.1 of the Guidelines to Financial Corrections. In this case a reasoned request has to be submitted to the Managing Authority. Fine for delay Fine for delay, if necessary, will be applied in compliance with chapter 2.7 for the Guidelines to Financial Corrections. Appeal of the decision The present Financial Correction Decision may be appealed in accordance with the Annex 4 to the Programme Manual, which is available on the web-site https://old.estlat.eu/. (signed digitally) Ege Ello Head of the Managing Authority Cooperation Programme Interreg V-A Estonia-Latvia Grants Development Department Külli Kaare 663 1950 [email protected]