Report on the Audit of the Management and Control Systems of the EU Structural Funds

Report ID: 274

In 2006, the SAIs of  Austria, Hungary, Poland and Slovenia decided to carry out a coordinated audit to the Management and Control Systems of the EU Structural Funds. The audit objective was to assess the compliance of participating countries’ activities for the implementation of selected operational programs co-financed from the ERDF with the requirements of the Community law and their respective national law.

The scope of the audit covered the functioning of the internal control system implemented in the budget year of 2007 in one or several priority axis, operation or program selected by the individual SAIs, which get support to implement the “convergence” objective from the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) 2007–2013. 

SOURCE: https://www.nku.cz/en/audit/coordinated-audits/

Underlying Risks to Sustainable Public Finances

Report ID: 304

Parallel Audit Report to the Contact Committee of the heads of the SAIs  of the Member States of the European Union and the European Court of Auditors by the SAIs of Finland, Latvia, the Netherlands, Portugal, Slovakia and Sweden (Coordinator).

The parallel audit project was endorsed by the Contact Committee at its meeting in June 2015. The participating SAIs followed an agreed broad common audit approach allowing them to conduct their audit work according to their national mandates. Each SAI was free to decide the scope, audit questions and methods for their respective audit while recognising the common approach. This parallel audit report is thus a synthesis of six audits conducted independently by SAIs at the national level. It contains general observations and conclusions but no common recommendations.

The aims of the parallel audit was to 1) draw attention to risks that need to be addressed in order to maintain fiscal sustainability based on recommendations from international organisations; and 2) assess how the governments dealt with the recommendations they received.

This audit was based on reviews of country specific reports and recommendations from the European Union (EU), the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) and the International Monetary Fund (IMF) issued in the period 2011–2015, (the audited period). The participating SAIs have mapped the various recommendations to their respective country as well as the government responses to these recommendations. They have furthermore audited the public availability of the recommendations at national level as well as national follow-up procedures. A number of SAIs have moreover assessed the effectiveness of government measures.

A general observation of the parallel audit working group is that recommendations issued by the three international organisations tend to overlap within each country. This might indicate that the international organisations have pinpointed relevant areas of concern. The overall conclusion is that multilateral surveillance of economic policy, even when the recommendations are not binding, constitutes good opportunities for governments to learn from best practices and to improve their policies.

SOURCE: https://www.eca.europa.eu/sites/cc/Lists/CCDocuments/Underlying%20Risks%20to%20Sustainable%20Public%20Finances/Parallel_Audit_Report_EN.pdf

COMPENDIUM CAROSAI PROGRAME ON COOPERATIVE AUDITS OF REVENUE DEPARTMENT

Report ID: 308

From 2013 to 2015, the SAIs of Bahamas, Barbados, Grenada, Guyana, Jamaica y St. Lucia conducted a parallel audit of revenues,aimed to improve SAI’s professional staff and organisational capacity to conduct and report on audit of revenues / revenue departments (AIM). This audit took place under the framework of a CAROSAI Programme on Cooperative Audits of Revenue Department supported by the INTOSAI Development Initiative (IDI), the INTOSAI Capacity Building Committee (CBC).

The audit objective was to assess the effectiveness of the management of taxes (such as VAT, income tax, business tax) in the participating countries by examining key aspects of the revenue collection process: 1. Registration; 2. Collection; 3. Compliance and enforcement; and 4. Monitoring and Reporting.

A general conclusion was tbat current management performance reporting mechanisms across the agencies audited did not enable management to exercise sufficient ongoing control over the debt collection function. In some instances high level revenue targets were set related to a predetermined value as opposed to an accurate assessment of total obligations.

This impacts governments’ revenue base. The development of a monitoring strategy would provide immediate business benefits by ensuring that where ineffective processes in the debt collections function are identified, they are reported to management promptly so that remedial action can be taken.

Over the longer term, regular management reporting based on monitoring the performance of the debt collection activities (with Key Performance Indicators assigned) would support management’s responsibility to ensure the efficiency and effectiveness of its collections business operations.

Source: https://www.eurosai.org/handle404?exporturi=/export/sites/eurosai/.content/documents/CAROSAI-Compendium.pdf

Parallel Audit of the Preparation for the organisation of the final tournament of the UEFA EURO 2012 European Football Championship - (2007-2008)

Report ID: 312

The European Football Championship is the third largest sporting event after the Olympics and the World Cup. On 18 April 2007 Poland and Ukraine were granted the right to organize EURO 2012, with the Polish Football Association and the Ukrainian Football Federation jointly accepting the offer. 

On 2 May 2007 an agreement on the organisation of the Final Tournament of the UEFA European Football Championship 2010/12 was signed between UEFA and the EURO 2012 organisers, valid until 30 June 2013.  This agreement sets out the requirements for the organisation of EURO 2012 in accordance with UEFA regulations, obligations and guarantees of state authorities and local governments, among others, and contains annexes in the form of: stadium contracts, contracts with EURO 2012 host cities and agreements with ports.

A paralle audit to  "Preparation of Poland for the organisation of the final tournament of the UEFA EURO 2012 European Football Championship" was undertaken on the initiative of the SAIs of Poland and Ukraine. The audit was carried out in the period from September 2008 to January 2009, and covered the period 2007-2008.

The aim of the audit was to assess the implementation, coordination and monitoring and financing tasks related to the preparations of Poland and Ukraine for the organisation of EURO 2012 by the competent authorities, public administration and other entities, including:

1) The organizational activities carried out by the Council of Ministers and the relevant Ministers and the EURO 2012 host cities;
2) Construction or modernisation of stadia and infrastructure: aviation, road, rail, hotel and communication in the EURO 2012 host cities
3) Development of security and order projects, public and medical security, and promotion of Poland and Ukraine and the EURO 2012 host cities.

* The report is available in Polish and Ukranianource.

** The audit for the period 2009-2010 is also available in the catalogue: https://intosai-cooperativeaudits.org/catalog/report/parallel-audit-of-the-preparation-of-poland-and-ukraine-for-the-organization-of-the-european-football-championship-euro-2012-tournament

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