Rapport de la task force sur l'union bancaire européenne au comité de contact des présidents des institutions supérieures de contrôle des États membres de l'Union européenne et de la Cour des comptes européenne

Report ID: 317

En 2008, l'Europe a été frappée par une crise financière et une crise de la dette souveraine qui a suivi. De nombreux gouvernements ont soutenu des institutions financières en faillite avec des fonds publics s'élevant à des centaines de milliards d'euros. En réaction, les pays de la zone euro ont mis en place l'Union bancaire européenne, qui comprend un mécanisme de surveillance unique.  Dans le cadre de ce mécanisme, la Banque centrale européenne est directement responsable de la surveillance prudentielle de toutes les "institutions importantes". Les autorités nationales compétentes sont directement responsables de la surveillance des "institutions moins importantes", sur la base des orientations de la Banque centrale européenne.

Les institutions supérieures de contrôle de l'Autriche, de Chypre, de la Finlande, de l'Allemagne et des Pays-Bas ont effectué un audit parallèle pour examiner le contrôle bancaire au niveau national. Les objectifs de l'audit parallèle étaient les suivants:

1) de mieux comprendre les différences entre les États membres de l'UE dans la manière dont les autorités de surveillance ont mis en place et exercent le contrôle prudentiel des INS, et

2) de recueillir des éléments probants sur les éventuelles "lacunes en matière d'audit" qui ont pu apparaître à la suite de l'introduction du mécanisme de contrôle unique.

L'une des conclusions était qu'un mandat d'audit complet évaluant le processus des contrôle et d'évaluation du contrôle bancaire n'est pas garanti dans le cadre du mécanisme de surveillance unique (MSS) et qu'avant novembre 2014, le champ d'audit des institutions nationales supérieures de contrôle des finances publiques allait bien au-delà de ce que la CCE est en mesure d'exercer aujourd'hui vis-à-vis de la BCE.

Fonte: https://www.eca.europa.eu/sites/cc/Lists/CCDocuments/Task_Force_EBU/Task_Force_EBU_FR.pdf

Preparation for resolution of medium-sized and small banks in the EURO area - Results of a parallel audit of Supreme Audit Institutions on banking resolution

Report ID: 339

In 2012, the European Union (EU) decided to set up a European Banking Union for the euro area. The Banking Union is responsible to ensure that the EU rules for supervision and resolution are implemented effectively and consistently across the euro area and in other participating countries.

In December 2017, a group of national Supreme Audit Institutions (SAIs) united in the Task Force on European Banking Union published a report on national supervision on medium-sized and smaller banks – or “Less Significant Institutions” (LSIs4) – under the Single Supervisory Mechanism (SSM). This report is available at:

https://intosai-cooperativeaudits.org/catalog/report/report-of-the-task-force-on-european-banking-union-on-prudential-supervision-of-medium-sized-and-small-less-significant-institutions-in-the-european-union-after-the-introduction-of-the-single-supervisory-mechanism

In 2018, the Contact Committee of the heads of Supreme Audit Institutions (SAIs) in the EU mandated a group of SAIs united in the Task Force Banking Union to initiate a parallel audit on the functioning of the Single Resolution Mechanism (SRM) in the preparatory activities for the resolution of medium-sized and small banks – or Less Significant Institutions (LSIs) – under the remit of the National Resolution Authorities (NRAs)  in selected countries in the euro area.

The report is aimed to provide insight into the way the Single Resolution Mechanism (SRM) is set up and carried out for LSIs in different euro area countries, and what potential risks are involved. In addition, the second aim is to identify to what extent SAIs are actually able to exercise their audit mandates and obtain full access to documents required.

The scope of this parallel audit is restricted to resolution planning for medium-sized and small banks. Three research questions were devised for this audit:

1. Are NRAs adequately equipped and prepared to carry out the resolution task regarding medium-sized and small banks?

2. How is the preparation for resolution activities regarding medium-sized and small banks being carried out in practice by the NRAs?

3. Do SAIs face any barriers in auditing banking resolution and obtaining access to relevant documents?

4. How do Ministers of Finance comply with their responsibilities for the functioning of the resolution mechanism? Do they comply with them adequately in practice, including accountability to parliament?

Source:https://www.eca.europa.eu/sites/cc/Lists/CCDocuments/Task_Force_EBU_2020/Task_Force_EBU_2020_EN.pdf

Bericht über die parallele Prüfung der Leistung der Strukturfondsprogramme der EU in den Bereichen Beschäftigung und Umwelt

Report ID: 343

2006 erteilte der Kontaktausschuss der Arbeitsgruppe "Strukturfonds" das Mandat, ihre Überprüfungen von Strukturfondsfragen fortzusetzen und insbesondere eine gezielte Überprüfung der "Leistung (Output/Effektivität) der Strukturfondsprogramme in den Bereichen Beschäftigung und/oder Umwelt″ durchzuführen. Die Arbeitsgruppe einigte sich auf einen Prüfungsplan, der einen Rahmen für die Durchführung der Überprüfung bot. Jede ORKB untersuchte die Arbeit ihrer jeweiligen nationalen Verwaltung bei der Planung, Begleitung und Bewertung von Projekten, Maßnahmen, Unterprogrammen oder Programmen (je nach Fall), die von den Strukturfonds kofinanziert werden.

Die ORKBn von Österreich, Finnland, Deutschland, Ungarn, Italien, Lettland, Malta, den Niederlanden, Polen, Portugal, der Slowakischen Republik, Slowenien, Spanien und dem Vereinigten Königreich nahmen an der Prüfung teil. Die ORKB von Bulgarien, der Tschechischen Republik und Litauen sowie der Europäische Rechnungshof waren Beobachter. Ziel war es, Verbesserungsmöglichkeiten bei den Strukturfondsprogrammen zu identifizieren, insbesondere bei der Planung und der administrativen Abwicklung.

Die Überprüfung bezog jede ORKB in eine Untersuchung der Strukturfonds (Ziele 1 und 2) in den Bereichen Beschäftigung und/oder Umwelt ein und kam zu folgenden Ergebnissen

- ob und wie die nationalen Behörden den nachhaltigen Erfolg der geförderten Maßnahmen kontrollierten;

- inwieweit die Fördermaßnahmen (Teilprogramme, Großprojekte und sonstige Projekte) einen wirksamen und nachhaltigen Beitrag zu den strategischen Zielen der Strukturfonds leisteten.

Der Prüfungsgegenstand war ein wichtiges Thema, das sowohl für die Strukturfondsprogramme 2000-2006 als auch 2007- 2013 von Bedeutung war. Die Prüfung bezog sich auf die beiden Schlüsselbereiche der strategischen Planung und der Bewertung von Fördermaßnahmen. Auf der Grundlage der Prüfung von Maßnahmen aus dem Zeitraum 2000-2006 wollte jede der ORKBn zu dem Schluss kommen, inwieweit die Mitgliedstaaten zur Verwirklichung der strategischen Ziele des jeweiligen OPs beigetragen haben. Da die Ziele der Strukturfonds von der Periode 2000-2006 in die Programmperiode 2007-2013 übergegangen sind, wurden die Erkenntnisse aus der Prüfung der Maßnahmen aus der Periode 2000- 2006 genutzt, um die Empfehlungen für die Verbesserung der neuen Periode 2007-2013 zu untermauern.

Der Bericht enthält die von den einzelnen ORKB ermittelten bewährten Praktiken, die für beide Programmzeiträume 2000-2006 und 2007-2013 relevant sind. Als allgemeine gute Praxis wurden viele der aus dem Programmzeitraum 2000-2006 gezogenen Lehren in die Verwaltungsvereinbarungen der Mitgliedstaaten für 2007-2013 aufgenommen.

Quelle: https://www.eca.europa.eu/sites/cc/Lists/CCDocuments/1959901/1959901_DE.PDF

Joint Report on the Results of Parallel Audits of Excise Duty Administration in the Slovak Republic and in the Czech Republic

Report ID: 344

Legislation in the Czech Republic and in Slovakia on excise duty and its administration complies with EU legislation and exceeds EU requirements substantially. Differences have been discovered between Slovak and Czech excise duty regulations: in the Czech Republic, verification of the economic stability of applicants for permits and mandatory labelling and dyeing of several mineral and some other oils contribute to effective excise duty administration; in Slovakia, the distribution of excise stamps is simpler than in the Czech Republic and less of a burden on excise duty administrators. In the fight against excise duty evasion, supervising the movement of raw tobacco or tobacco materials, the implementation of the institute of a transport fuel distributor, and keeping a registry of merchants of consumer packaged alcohol appear to be a good practice in the fight against excise duty evasion. Excise duty revenues in the Czech Republic and in Slovakia grow more slowly than other tax revenues

In August 2015, The Supreme Audit Institutions of  Czech Republic and Slovakia agreed to conduct parallel audits aimed primarily at excise duty administration an signed an Agreement for this purpose. The topic of the parallel audits was chosen because both EU Member States follow common European legislation on this matter, thereby providing an opportunity to ascertain how European legislation is applied on a national level, how the excise duty administration system is set up, and how the system in Slovakia and the system in the Czech Republic differ.

The audit questions on which the parallel audits were based were agreed jointly. The parallel audits aimed to compare the performance of the excise duty administrators while taking into account qualitative and quantitative indicators and identifying weaknesses in the excise duty administration process. Answers to the following audit questions in particular should have been sought:

- Have excise duty administrators in the Czech Republic and Slovakia been attaining comparable values of qualitative indicators while incurring comparable costs?

- Has implementation of the EMCS1 resulted in more effective excise duty administration and has been spending on its implementation effective?

- The joint final report on the audit results was drawn up in accordance with ISSAI 300 - Fundamental Principles of Performance Auditing

Source: https://www.nku.cz/assets/publikace-a-dokumenty/ostatni-publikace/spolecna-zprava-kontrola-spotrebni-dane-cr-sr_en_1.pdf

Administration of Value Added Tax in the Czech Republic and the Federal Republic of Germany Follow-up Audit Report

Report ID: 345

VAT is an audit area which is very suitable for tax audit cooperation because it is the only tax harmonised within the EU. The Supreme Audit Office of the Czech Republic (hereinafter “Czech SAI”) and the Federal Court of Auditors – Bundesrechnungshof (hereinafter “German SAI”) conducted a first ever parallel audit in the field of VAT in 2006. The report was published in 2008 (The report si also published in the catalogue at https://intosai-cooperativeaudits.org/catalog/report/report-on-the-results-of-the-parallel-audit-of-the-administration-of-value-added-tax-in-the-czech-republic-and-in-the-federal-republic-of-germany).

The follow-up audit of the administration of VAT in the Czech Republic and in Germany was carried out on the basis of an agreement between the two SAIs. During previous parallel audits, suspicious cases of intra-Community transactions were detected. Some of them merited further review. On the basis of audit findings the two SAIs produced recommendations on VAT management.

The follow-up audit was conducted to evaluate the action taken in response to these recommendations and to review the suspicious cases selected. In addition, the two SAIs decided to examine the following matters in their parallel audit mission:

• review of selected cases of intra-Community transactions between taxpayers from the Czech Republic and Germany that were not resolved during the previous parallel audit,

• review of selected cases of intra-Community transactions between taxpayers from the Czech Republic and Germany that were classified as high-risk cases,

• audit of the tax administrations’ procedure in the field of international assistance for the recovery of VAT claims,

• VAT audits of large companies.

The cooperation of the two SAIs within the parallel audits of the administration of VAT achieved the objectives set by the German and Czech SAI. The two SAIs developed a deeper understanding of the applicable systems in the Czech Republic and Germany in the fields of:

• intra-Community transactions

• risk management of VAT, especially concerning the selection of risk prone transactions

, • recovery of VAT claims, and

• VAT audits of large tax entities.

Due to mutual cooperation, differences of strategies to detect VAT fraud cases and in the above mentioned areas of VAT administration in the Czech Republic and Germany were revealed. Audit findings were compared and on their basis best practices were identified. Furthermore, the SAIs hope that the results achieved may encourage stakeholders to enter into discussions about approaches and strategies within and among Member States as well as with the EU Commission.

Source: https://www.nku.cz/assets/publications-documents/other-publications/paralelni-kontroly-spravy-dph-cr-srn-2010.pdf