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

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

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

Report ID: 404

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_cz.pdf

English report: https://intosai-cooperativeaudits.org/catalog/report/joint-report-on-the-results-of-parallel-audits-of-excise-duty-administration-in-the-slovak-republic-and-in-the-czech-republic

Informe del Grupo de Trabajo sobre la Unión Bancaria Europea al Comité de Contacto de las Entidades Fiscalizadoras Superiores de la Unión Europea y el Tribunal de Cuentas Europeo

Report ID: 411

A partir de 2008, Europa se vio afectada por una crisis financiera y una posterior crisis de deuda soberana. Muchos gobiernos apoyaron a instituciones financieras en quiebra con fondos públicos por valor de cientos de miles de millones de euros. En respuesta, los países de la zona del euro introdujeron la Unión Bancaria Europea, incluido un Mecanismo Único de Supervisión. En este Mecanismo, el Banco Central Europeo es directamente responsable de la supervisión prudencial de todas las 'Entidades Significativas'. Las Autoridades Nacionales Competentes son directamente responsables de la supervisión de las 'Instituciones Menos Significativas', en base a la orientación del Banco Central Europeo. 

Las Entidades Fiscalizadoras Superiores de Austria, Chipre, Finlandia, Alemania y los Países Bajos llevaron a cabo una auditoría paralela para examinar la supervisión bancaria a nivel nacional

Fuente: https://www.bundesrechnungshof.de/en/audit-reports/products/special-reports/2017-special-reports/report-of-the-task-force-on-european-banking-union-to-the-contact-committee-of-supreme-audit-institutions-of-the-european-union-and-the-european-court-of-auditors-1