(3) No answer or statement made in response to a question described in subsection (2) shall be used or receivable in any criminal, civil or administrative action or proceeding, other than a proceeding under this Part regarding an allegation that with intent to mislead the member gave the answer or statement knowing it to be false.

18. Deplores the fact that the estimated amount affected by irregularities reported by the EU-10 grew by 8%, while that for the EU-2 increased by 152%, and the amounts recovered were 15.6% down on 2007; calls in particular on Bulgaria and Romania to build up their administrative capacity to manage EU funding, remove existing or potential conflicts of interest in fund management, improve the supervision and transparency of public procurement procedures at central, regional and local levels and swiftly introduce and notify to the Commission the necessary precautionary, corrective and/or disciplinary measures; acknowledges and supports th ...[+++]e steps taken by Bulgaria and Romania to improve shared management and financial control standards in response to the Commission's recommendations;

18. Deplores the fact that the estimated amount affected by irregularities reported by the EU-10 grew by 8%, while that for the EU-2 increased by 152%, and the amounts recovered were 15.6% down on 2007; calls in particular on Bulgaria and Romania to build up their administrative capacity to manage EU funding, remove existing or potential conflicts of interest in fund management, improve the supervision and transparency of public procurement procedures at central, regional and local levels and swiftly introduce and notify to the Commission the necessary precautionary, corrective and/or disciplinary measures; acknowledges and supports th ...[+++]e steps taken by Bulgaria and Romania to improve shared management and financial control standards in response to the Commission's recommendations;

However, our response is a long-term solution at EU level, whose main elements are, firstly, the establishment of standards at EU level through the extension of the IPPC Directive and, secondly, the establishment of guidelines regarding sham or fake recovery and clearer distinctions between the different recovery and disposal operations.

In the Commission's view, a "written procedure" is acceptable only in respect of those cases where the trader from whom the information being sought is above reproach, because otherwise, the answer given to the requesting Member State is at best doubtful, and can, in the worst case scenario i.e. collusion between traders for the purpose of perpetrating fraud, be counter-productive, as it warns both traders that their affairs are su ...[+++]bject to investigation, and they can then successfully throw both administrations "off the scent".