An SAO SR audit has repeatedly identified shortcomings in the work of expert evaluators, the documentation of their activities and the active verification of potential conflicts of interest. These persistent deficiencies raise concerns about whether European funding is being used effectively and transparently. The SAO SR recommends, among other measures, strengthening the independence and transparency of expert evaluation and ensuring a verifiable audit trail. The audit covered 2014–2025, a period during which projects from two programming periods overlapped.

Science, research and innovation are key to strengthening the competitiveness of the Slovak economy and its transformation towards a knowledge-based economy with higher added value. Funding from national and European sources also affects the quality of higher education, industry and sustainable regional development. Poor project management, coordination and evaluation can, however, increase the risk of public resources being used inefficiently and without sufficient transparency. The latest SAO audit followed up on deficiencies identified in previous audits in 2014, 2017 and 2018.

According to data available as of June this year, calls worth more than €342 million had been launched by the end of February. Funding uptake was almost zero in the area of strengthening research and innovation capacities in businesses.

“Despite a contracting rate of almost 71%, the advanced stage of the programming period indicates a risk that the allocated funds may not be fully used, effectively and in line with the stated objectives. Concentrating project implementation towards the end of the programming period may place additional pressure on administrative capacities, increase error rates and delays, and ultimately lead to inefficient use of European funding for the sustainable development of Slovak society,” warned Jaroslav Ivančo, Vice-President of the SAO.

The SAO’s cross-cutting audit confirmed that four systemic deficiencies identified among 51 risks in previous SAO audits continue to persist. In addition to missed deadlines, these included recurring problems with recording the work of expert evaluators and documenting checks for potential conflicts of interest. Timesheets or declarations confirming the hours worked were missing.

The SAO considers it particularly serious that there was insufficient evidence that evaluators’ potential conflicts of interest had been properly checked. The audit also identified shortcomings in documenting checks at individual stages of the expert evaluation process—for example, a checklist had been created before the final evaluation sheet was submitted. Deficiencies were also found in quality checks of evaluators’ work and in records of their training, which was a prerequisite for beginning the evaluation process. In some cases, the audit trail of communication between project managers and evaluators was incomplete, making it impossible to retrospectively verify how the evaluation had been conducted.

No significant deficiencies were found in the preparation and launch of calls or in the registration of applications. Problems persisted, however, in meeting deadlines for the administrative verification of applications and issuing decisions on the provision of non-repayable financial contributions.

For example, administrative verification of one project under the Operational Programme Integrated Infrastructure (OPII) was delayed by up to 77 working days, while the decision on the application was delayed by 13 working days. For projects under the Slovakia Programme, delays ranged from 20 to 27 working days. These delays postponed the start of projects and the provision of funding to beneficiaries.

Shortcomings were also identified in project monitoring and sustainability. Delays in approving monitoring reports and paying final claims can directly affect beneficiaries, who may be forced to pre-finance project activities from their own or external resources.

“This situation can negatively affect the implementation of high-quality projects and increase the risk of delayed uptake of EU funding towards the end of the programming period. Addressing the identified deficiencies is important not only for the transparent and effective use of current European funding, but also for creating better conditions for continued support for science, research and innovation after 2028,” Ivančo added.