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

Coordinated Audit of the Brazilian Penitentiary System 2017

Report ID: 385

Although prison management is the main function of the federated states in Brazil, taking into account the balance of the National Penitentiary Fund and in order to examine the most relevant aspects of the operational management and infrastructure of prisons in Brazil,  the Court of Audit of the Union of Brazil, together with 22 Courts of Audit, and the support of the Association of Members of the Courts of Audit (Atricon), the Rui Barbosa Institute (IRB) and the National Council of Attorneys General (CNPGC), conducted a coordinated audit on this topic.

The audit addressed issues related to the emergency measures taken to address the recent rebellions (January / 2017) that occurred in several Brazilian criminal court establishments, the electronic system of monitoring the execution of sentences, the adequacy of the allocation of prisoners, the provision of services to those in need by the Public Defender's Office and the monthly cost of the prisoner. 

The following questions were addressed in the audit:

(a) Are the strategies adopted by the Union and the states / FD sufficient or adequate to prevent or contain rebellions in prisons?

b) Is the monitoring of the execution of sentences in accordance with the provisions of Law 12.714 / 2012?

c) Does the allocation of inmates in penitentiary establishments comply with the provisions of articles 82, §1, 84, 85, 87, 91, 93 and 102 of the LEP?

d) Does the Public Defender's Office provide a full and free service inside and outside prisons in accordance with articles 16, 81-A and 81-B of the LEP?

e) To what extent do the managers responsible for the management and implementation of public policies aimed at the penitentiary system know the monthly cost of each inmate in order to evaluate the management of the system?

The study covered the Federal District and 17 other states: Acre, Amazonas, Bahia, Maranhão, Minas Gerais, Mato Grosso do Sul, Mato Grosso, Pará, Paraíba, Piauí, Paraná, Rio Grande do Norte, Rondônia, Roraima, Rio Grande do Sul. Sergipe, Tocantins.

The audit found, among others, that 59% of the 17 states inspected had not calculated the monthly cost of the prisoner in the last three years. Also with data from the last three years, no state analysed sent the monthly cost of the inmate to the National Penitentiary Department (Depen). Although the National Council of Penal and Penitentiary Policy (CNPCP) has established parameters for the calculation of this cost, 83% of the respondents do not follow these criteria.

Another fact that stands out is the fact that 11 out of the 18 units of the federation (UF), including the Federal District, therefore 61%, faced some kind of rebellion between October 2016 and May 2017. It was also verified that the majority of rebellions during this period took place in establishments with a shortage of space: 18 of the 23 penitentiary units that had a record of rebellions. In other words, 78% of the cases of rebellion took place in overcrowded prisons.

Source: https://portal.tcu.gov.br/imprensa/noticias/realidade-prisional-auditoria-mostra-que-o-custo-mensal-do-preso-e-desconhecido-em-varios-estados.htm  

** The summary of the audit is part of Ruling 2643/2017 - TCU Plenary (Process: 003.673 / 2017-0).

Auditoría Coordinada sobre Obras Viales - Resumen Ejecutivo

Report ID: 388

El documento consolida los principales resultados y oportunidades de mejora identificadas en la Auditoría Coordinada sobre Obras Viales realizada en el marco del Grupo de Trabajo de Auditoría de Obras Públicas (GTOP) de la Organización Latinoamericana y del Caribe de Entidades Fiscalizadoras Superiores (OLACEFS). Esta auditoría se realizó con el propósito de evaluar, por medio de auditorías de cumplimiento, la calidad de obras viales de construcción y mantenimiento de once países: Brasil, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Ecuador, El Salvador, Honduras, México, Paraguay, Perú y República Dominicana.

La auditoría coordinada tuvo como objetivo evaluar, por medio de revisiones de cumplimiento, la calidad de las obras viales de construcción y mantenimiento bajo la administración directa del gobierno, abarcando desde los estudios preliminares hasta la ejecución de la obra. Debido de la participación de diversos países en la auditoría, fue necesario emplear criterios de auditoría que fueran transversales y comunes al objeto auditado. Además, se observó que la legislación y las normas técnicas aplicables
a las obras viales en los diversos países, aun cuando tienen muchas similitudes entre ellas, también son ricas en diferencias.

El informe consolidado completo también está disponible en: https://intosai-cooperativeaudits.org/catalog/report/auditora-coordinada-de-obras-viales

Fuente: www.olacefs.com/auditorias-coordinadas/

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