journal - European Court of Auditors

Transcription

ISSN 1831-449X
2013
European Court of Auditors
JANUARY
JANVIER
JOURNAL
Cour des comptes européenne
No01
THE CONTENTS OF THE INTERVIEWS AND THE ARTICLES ARE THE SOLE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE
INTERVIEWEES AND AUTHORS
AND DO NOT NECESSARILY REFLECT THE OPINION OF THE EUROPEAN COURT OF AUDITORS
PRODUCTION
Rédacteur en chef / Editor in Chief : Rosmarie Carotti
Tél. / tel.: 00352 4398 - 45506 - e-mail : [email protected]
Mise en page, diffusion / Layout, distribution : Direction de la Présidence - Directorate of the Presidency
Photos : Reproduction interdite / Reproduction prohibited
Tous les numéros de notre Journal se trouvent sur les sites / The Journal can be found on :
INTERNET : http://eca.europa.eu/portal/page/portal/publications/Journal
EU bookshop : http://bookshop.europa.eu/
Copyright
SOMMAIRE
CONTENTS
Pages
p.03
02
THE NOBEL PEACE PRIZE 2012 AWARDED TO THE EUROPEAN UNION
President Vítor CALDEIRA attended the The Nobel Peace prize award ceremony on behalf
of the ECA in Oslo on 10 December 2012
03
FAREWELL OF Mrs NADEJDA SANDOLOVA, MEMBER OF THE COURT
By Mrs Nadejda Sandolova, Member of the Court from Bulgaria
05
GERMANY’S ENERGY TRANSITION
Federal Environment Minister ALTMAIER, speaking on 12 November 2012 at the invitation
of the Christian Social People's Party (CSV) in Luxembourg
By Rosmarie Carotti
07
“A RESOLUTE LOOK AT THE FINANCIAL FUTURE”
Prof. Nouriel ROUBINI, spoke in Luxembourg on 26 November 2012, at the invitation of the
Banque Internationale à Luxembourg (BIL).
By Rosmarie Carotti
10
SPECIAL REPORT 22/2012 "DO THE EUROPEAN INTEGRATION FUND AND EUROPEAN
REFUGEE FUND CONTRIBUTE EFFECTIVELY TO THE INTEGRATION OF THIRD-COUNTRY
NATIONALS?"
Presentation by Milan Martin CVIKL, Member of the Court
11
LA CONTRIBUTION DE LA CdCE AU "CODICE" DELL’UNIONE EUROPEA OPERATIVO”
Par Nicola Scafarto, juriste au service juridique de la CdCE
Paolo Giusta, actuellement auditeur principal à la CdCE
Pietro Russo, magistrat italien et actuellement Membre iltalien de la CdCE
17
PRESENTATION OF THE ECA 2011 ANNUAL REPORT IN THE CZECH REPUBLIC
By Jan Kinšt, Member of the Court
18
VISIT TO SLOVENE PARLIAMENT
By Andreja Rovan, Private office attaché of Mr Cvikl
19
PRESENTATION DU RAPPORT ANNUEL 2011 EN ESPAGNE
Par le Cabinet de Mr. Tomé
20
PRESENTATION DU RAPPORT ANNUEL 2011 AUX AUTORITÉS LUXEMBOURGEOISES
le 19 novembre 2012
Par Rosmarie Carotti
20
PRESENTATION OF THE COURT’S 2011 ANNUAL REPORT IN SWEDEN
By Peter Eklund, Private Office of Mr Wessberg
21
PRESENTATION OF THE 2011 ANNUAL REPORT IN THE GERMAN BUNDESTAG
By Dagmar Freudenstein, Private Office of Mr Noack
21
PRESENTATION OF THE COURT’S 2011 ANNUAL REPORT IN ROMANIA
By Patrick Weldon, Head of Private Office of Mr Ispir
22
FOCUS :
- Special Reports N°17/2012, N°20/2012, N°21/2012, N°22/2012
- Hello to / Goodbye to
24
Mr KUBIK, MEMBER OF THE COURT, IN POLAND
By Mariusz Pomienski, Head of Private Office
p.02
p.03
p.05
p.07
p.17
p.35
p.18
p.36
p.18
p.37
p.19
p.19
p.20
p.24
Couverture/Cover:
- President Caldeira at the Nobel Award - Ken Opprann, Photographer
- MLA style European Union (EU) - Nobel Diploma. Nobelprize.org - 12 Dec 2012 www.nobelprize.orgnobel_prizespeacelaureates2012eu-diploma.html .jpg
- Mrs Nadejda Sandolova, Member of the Court from Bulgaria
1
THE NOBEL PEACE PRIZE 2012 AWARDED TO THE EUROPEAN UNION
Photo copyright : Ken Opprann, Photographer
President Vítor CALDEIRA attended the The Nobel Peace prize award
ceremony on behalf of the ECA in Oslo on 10 December 2012.
President Caldeira second from left in the second row
The Nobel Prize was awarded to the EU for having contributed to the
advancement of peace and reconciliation, democracy and human right in
Europe for over six decades.
MLA style European Union (EU) - Nobel Diploma.
Nobelprize.org - 12 Dec 2012 - www.nobelprize.orgnobel_
prizespeacelaureates2012eu-diploma.html .jpg
"I am very honoured to be representing the Court at the Nobel prize-giving
ceremony. It is an important achievement, for which all of us who work within the
EU institutions can be proud. I find it is particularly fitting that the prize money
will help those less fortunate than ourselves," says President Caldeira.
The Nobel Peace prize money will be allocated to children affected by war
and conflict across the world.
2
FAREWELL OF Mrs NADEJDA SANDOLOVA, MEMBER OF THE COURT
Mrs SANDOLOVA had been appointed for a term of six years on
1st January 2007
Mrs Sandolova, Member of the Court and Mrs Rosmarie Carotti, editor in chief
of the "Journal"
Six years is not a long period of time, however it is long enough in the life of a person. The years
that I have spent here passed by quickly and the changes are tangible. Bulgaria can be proud of a
number of projects executed within the framework of European programs. These projects brought
real benefits to all citizens and reinforced our European identity.
For me those six years meant hard work, gaining new experience and establishing new professional
and human contacts. At my hearing in 2007 at the European Parliament I stated that for me the
European ideal is one of the greatest achievements of the 20th century. I still believe in this and
in my opinion the fact that this year the European Union was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize is
recognition for all that has been achieved in the name of the European ideal and for its deep
meaning for human civilization.
This six year period changed both Europe and us. The economic crisis and the need for “belt
tightening” made both the political elites and the citizens in all Member States face new challenges
and rethink the European integration model as a whole. European institutions nowadays are
required to show greater flexibility and readiness for initiative in order to react adequately to the
fast changes in the social and market environments. In my opinion, in this respect, the European
Court of Auditors undertook a lot of changes successfully. The Court’s efforts to actively participate
in the establishment of the ESM control mechanism were a real success. As a result the Court has
a permanent place on the Audit board of the ESM together with the national SAI’s – and thus, in
my opinion, it will contribute significantly to a greater public accountability in this sensitive area.
The structural changes within the Court have already resulted in greater efficiency concerning the
decision-making process.
Naturally, the greatest challenge at this stage consists in adapting the audit scope to the new
realities. The public interest is now focused on what is happening in the banking sector where
there is a constant search for new political decisions with regard to its management. And in this
context the European Court of Auditors is faced with new challenges. This is an area in which public
audit does not have a full control mandate. Moreover, control in this area is principally different
from the audit of budget funds. It requires of the auditors an entirely different macroeconomic
and financial background. In addition to the audits of the EIF, of the EIB, based on the existing
tripartite agreement, and the audit of the ECB, Chamber IV focused its work on the European
Banking Authority and the reforms of banking supervision as well as on the audit of the balance
of payments assistance. I do hope that in the coming year a number of special reports will be
finalized by my colleagues and thus all stakeholders will receive the answers to many interesting
and pertinent questions.
3
FAREWELL OF MRS SANDOLOVA, MEMBER OF THE COURT
I understand the relevance of the scope of crisis-related
audits in a much wider sense. The current situation makes
us consider the spending of every euro from the EU budget
in a crisis situation as a European anti-crisis policy. In my
opinion, the euro is what it is, but when it is shared in the
framework of common policies at a moment of worsening
economic situation, it has a different and bigger political
value. Therefore, with the passage of time the importance
of the work of the European Court of Auditors will be more
and more significant. Solidarity at such a difficult time is of
paramount importance. Creativity should take precedence
over formality and a common sense of purpose should
fight the pull of centrifugal forces. I sincerely hope that this
process will be crowned with success at both the political
and social level.
I cannot miss this opportunity to share with the readers
of the Court’s journal the satisfaction that I enjoyed as
result of the shared experience with my colleagues who
demonstrated a truly exceptional level of collegiality and
professionalism. Working with my colleagues was a real pleasure for me. I am convinced that the
individual qualities of each and every person working at the Court, of every individual auditor, will
contribute to the successful dealing with the challenges of the current situation.
Mrs Sandolova, Member of the Court
from Bulgaria
I recall that when I arrived in 2007 I barely knew Luxembourg since I had visited the city as a
representative of the Bulgarian National Audit Office at the sessions of the Contact Committee.
Six years later, I have the feeling that I know not only a city, but also an organism that lives and
breathes, celebrates its national day with grandiose fireworks, where the Autumn season begins
with the opening of the Schueberfouer and where in Spring time the streets are covered with
blossoming magnolias. But it seems that the most important thing is that one always runs into
familiar people and that most of these people you can call your friends.
For me personally, I do hope that 2013 will bring positive changes and new opportunities both in
my professional and personal life. I expect to have more time for my professional research work, for
my family as well as for my social and political activities in Bulgaria.
Outside the Christmas spirit is in the air. In ancient times wars would stop at Christmas time. These
are the days when we have to turn to the strength of the human spirit. I would like to take this
beautiful opportunity to wish all my colleagues and their families happy Christmas holidays, good
health and every success during the new year.
4
Federal Environment Minister ALTMAIER, speaking on 12 November 2012 at the
invitation of the Christian Social People's Party (CSV) in Luxembourg
By Rosmarie Carotti
Never before has the issue of energy, power supply and
energy transition been as topical in Germany. When the
energy transition was decided a year after Fukushima,
its main focus was the phasing-out of nuclear energy.
Now there are two objectives: phasing out the civilian
use of nuclear energy and switching to renewable
energy forms.
Federal Environment Minister Altmaier describes
Germany’s phasing-out of nuclear energy for civilian
use as the unspectacular part, because Germany
derives only a quarter of its electricity from nuclear
power plants and has given itself ten years in which
Third from left: Federal Environment Minister Altmaier
to complete decommissioning. Last year, eight nuclear
power plants were shut down in Germany, and the remainder will be decommissioned gradually by 2022.
Technically this is not a problem, since Germany still exported electricity even during the coldest months
last year. Although Germany clearly espouses the phasing-out of nuclear energy, it does not have the right to
dictate to its European neighbours that they should shut down their nuclear power plants, the Minister says.
The second part of the energy transition is more interesting. It involves replacing Germany’s 25% nuclearenergy share, not via conventional means, i.e. coal and gas power plants, but through a fundamental
overhaul marking the biggest reform of energy supply in Germany for 150 years. By 2050 Germany wants to
have transformed its entire energy supply so that 80% of electricity comes from renewables such as hydro
power, biomass, wind and solar energy. No other industrialised country in the world of comparable size has
undertaken such an objective.
There is a great deal at stake for Germany. As the world’s third-largest economy it faces unrelenting
competition and therefore has to price its electricity attractively. Nevertheless, Federal Environment Minister
Altmaier is convinced that only a fundamental overhaul will resolve the huge environmental problems facing
Germany and the world as a whole.
Environmental legislation in Europe is progressive; the big threat to the environment comes from parts of the
world such as China and India, where huge economic growth is expected over the next few years. Every one
percent of economic growth there means higher energy consumption. As economic performance doubles
every ten years in statistical terms, a sharp rise in the consumption of fossil fuels is looming in these parts of
the world. China, for example, is building one new coal-fired power plant every week, with all the related CO2
emissions which this entails.
Only the development of a model which allows economic growth while at the same time enabling an
environmentally sound energy supply is capable of averting the complete destruction of the environment.
If Germany, the world’s third-largest industrialised country, is able to transform its energy supply using
renewables without jeopardising its competitiveness, almost every other country will copy this model.
Europe today is less influential than it was in the past, because the balance has shifted. Twenty years ago it
was possible to achieve a great deal in other countries with European money. Today, the money has dried
up and third countries no longer want it anyway. They want growth and prosperity. For that reason it is
important to demonstrate the possibility of establishing a functioning energy supply and producing economic
performance with low resource consumption, without fossil fuels and without damaging the environment.
In Germany, 25% of power consumption is generated from renewables, which is more than in any comparable
industrialised country in Europe. To achieve this, a decade ago Germany introduced a bold and generous
5
support programme for renewables: hydro power, biomass, wind and solar energy. In addition, Germany
adopted a feed-in tariff which led to a boom. The reason is simple: for ten years there have been low interest
rates in Europe and Germany. Investing money in solar panels or wind turbines can produce returns of
between 6 and 15%, guaranteed over 20 years. Therefore, the people who have invested in renewables are
not ‘eco’ students or Greenpeace activists, but lawyers, dentists, architects, engineers and other professionals.
This has sparked a movement in Germany.
Today, Germany is able to generate 30 000 megawatts from solar panels. On sunny days in May or June, this
corresponds to the daytime production of 20 medium-sized nuclear power plants. However, solar energy is
also subject to drastic fluctuations. Wind energy, on the other hand, which is mostly produced off Germany’s
northern coastline, has to be transmitted across hundreds of kilometres.
Germany needs a plan for national expansion which accommodates all 16 of its federal states. Germany must
also ensure that tomorrow’s power remains affordable. At present, solar panels and wind turbines are heavily
subsidised in order simply to allow renewables to expand. If Germany is to produce 80% of its power from
renewables by 2050, yet stay competitive, it needs to produce power at marketable prices. Renewable power
must be cheap in order to compete with nuclear and conventional power from abroad. This is the biggest
challenge, which is why the German Government also decided last summer to structure its feed-in tariffs
on a degressive scale. Once a figure of 52 000 megawatts is reached, feed-in tariffs will cease, as has been
negotiated with solar companies.
Expansion of the network of transmission lines will be the next major step. The network operators want
to build 4 000 km of transmission lines in order to convey wind power from the north of Germany to the
south. The operator of a wind turbine in the north thus earns good money while the recipient in the south
has security of supply for his or her company. However, what about the people living along the 900-km
transmission line? Federal Environment Minister Altmaier is proposing an agreement with network operators
under which nearby residents will be able to invest in such installations at an attractive preferential interest
rate of 5%.
These are the technical challenges of the energy transition, but the real challenges lie in the energy
transition’s enormous associated innovation potential. Possibilities for storing power from renewables must
be developed. There are two viable ideas. The first is to store solar energy for just one day. If a person has roofmounted solar panels, it is already a lot more attractive for them here and now to use the power themselves
than to feed it into the network. Siemens and Bosch are working on this idea, although it is still very costly at
present and therefore merits German Government support.
Furthermore, a new technology known as “power to gas” makes it possible to mix excess wind and solar
power with water and convert it into hydrogen and oxygen. Hydrogen is combustible in engines or can be
refined with CO2 to produce methane for unlimited storage in the gas network. This is also currently still very
expensive, because a lot of the energy within this process is lost and the technical problems are substantial.
In global terms the energy transition can become a successful export. Germany has the chance to develop the
technical solutions for renewables and energy storage and create fresh inducements for consumers through
new products requiring less energy.
The crucial thing will be how Germany proceeds with its energy transition in conjunction with its European
neighbours. Germany has been criticised for deciding to opt out of nuclear without asking the countries
around it. Federal Environment Minister Altmaier certainly labels this as a mistake, but believes that politicians
at times must have the courage to decide on matters for the future even when there are still no definitive
solutions. Germany is putting its faith in renewables, research and development, and has already invested
some € 50 billion in network expansion.
In addition to resolving the euro, debt and banking crises, Europe needs to learn the lesson that people must
also be offered projects with which they can identify. Therefore, Environment Minister Altmaier has called for
the energy transition to produce a genuine internal market for power and energy.
6
Prof. Nouriel ROUBINI, spoke in Luxembourg on 26 November 2012, at the invitation of the
Banque Internationale à Luxembourg (BIL).
By Rosmarie Carotti
Nouriel Roubini, better known as “Dr Doom” for predicting the 2008 financial
crisis, is of Iranian Jewish descent, grew up in Italy and is of American
nationality. He is Professor at New York University and a top global thinker.
Is Europe doomed to fail in the present economic and financial situation and what is the future of
global economy?
Prof. Roubini’s outlook upon the economic and financial future of Europe and the global economy
is, by far not as negative as one might think. For any crisis there is a solution. Speaking before a
European audience, he started with the eurozone and continued with the United States, China, the
emerging market economies and the geopolitical conflicts in the world.
In the eurozone he sees a situation of economic, fiscal and financial fragility - mainly in Greece,
Ireland, Portugal, Italy, Spain and more recently Cyprus and Slovenia. There are similarities and
differences in their problems, but all of them, to a different degree, have stock problems and
excessive public and private debt. In some countries there is additional fiscal debt and accumulation
of bad assets on the balance sheets of the banks.
And then there is a flow problem, because there is no economic growth. Most of the countries have
been in a recession and are still running deficits. Costs are rising, and the rise of the euro between
2000 and 2008 led to a loss of competitiveness and investments from private investors. So, there
are stock problems and flow problems in these economies.
The slow-down has reached the core of the eurozone. The economic data from France suggest that
next year France might slip into recession. The economic growth is slowing down even in Germany,
the strongest economy in the eurozone. Of its two main markets, China and the peripheral eurozone,
the latter is in economic recession.
There is also no integrated financial and banking system in the eurozone. Prof. Roubini talks about
the “Balkanisation of the banking system” meaning the breakdown of cross-border banking. Banks
in one eurozone country are reluctant to lend to banks in the periphery for fear that they won’t
get repaid. Instead, money is now flowing through the European Central Bank. On the other
hand, Prof. Roubini recognises that right now the ECB has recognised the risk of Balkanisation and
started to fight the excessive high spreads for some of the countries in the periphery - caused by
disintegration and often due only to irrational behaviour.
Prof. Roubini says many truths which are strongly felt in Europe. In order to resolve the current
problems, not only austerity but also structural reforms are needed. Austerity and raising taxes
were needed in the short term, but they have negative effects in the long term. The recession
in the eurozone is continuing and the euro is too strong - causing loss of competitiveness for
the eurozone. The banks in the periphery, which do not have enough capital to achieve Basel III
requirements, are compelled to sell assets and cut back lending.
More important, a monetary union alone cannot function. A banking union, a fiscal union, an
economic union and a political union are needed. Prof. Roubini recognises that the EU now has on
the table proposals for a banking union, for a fiscal union, for an economic union and for a political
union, and stresses that the Europeans have to realise that they have to move to more integration,
moving to what he calls the “United States of Europe”.
7
Positive signs are the creation of the ESM and the recognition that Germany cannot really be
successful alone without the eurozone. Only a united Europe and a united eurozone will be able to
establish economic, financial and political influence in the global context. The problem is that there
still is massive disagreement about the basic elements of what the banking union should be. On the
fiscal issue, looking at the budget debate in the EU, the Europeans cannot even agree on spending
1% of their GDP on a common standing for a fiscal union. There is even more disagreement on
political union.
But the real important issue, which according to Prof. Roubini is not discussed enough in Europe,
is economic growth. There are recession and high unemployment rates. People need to see light at
the end of the tunnel. There needs to be restoration of economic growth in the next twelve months,
otherwise riots, demonstrations and violence will eventually make governments collapse.
Prof. Roubini proposes to postpone some of the achievement of the fiscal targets by one or two
years. Germany should postpone austerity and give an economic fiscal stimulus like releasing taxes
and increase consumption. The ECB, on its side, could do more in conventional and unconventional
monetary policy.
The euro is too strong and a weakening of it could restore competitiveness. If the ECB were to
ease its monetary policy compared to other countries, exports, competitiveness and growth would
profit from it. Finally, more investments in public infrastructure are needed, even by countries like
Germany and this means eurobonds.
For the US, unlike the eurozone and Japan, Prof. Roubini reports economic growth, a recovery of
housing, the shale-gas revolution, an explosion in job creation and consumer confidence. The
negatives are that despite all stimuli, the growth has been in the last years around 1.5 - 2% and
therefore very slow.
Until now, fiscal austerity has been postponed, but now even the US has to increase fiscal
consolidation. If no agreement is reached on the balance sheet for next year, there will be automatic
tax increases in 2013. That will lead to recession as even 1% of GDP fiscal drag will heavily affect the
growth of the economy and lead to some slow-down.
Moving to China, Prof. Roubini points out that today the country is the second largest economy in
the world. Therefore what happens in China matters for the rest of the world. For the last 30 years,
the average growth rate of China has been 10% a year, although, of course, in terms of per capita
GDP, China ranks still among the poor countries.
The problem is that there is a political transition going on in China. Even the previous prime
minister says that the economic growth model of China is unsustainable, uncoordinated and
unstable. China’s economy is based on exports and these are slowing down without an increase in
consumption. In China consumption is only 1/3 of GDP. In the US consumers consume too much,
in China too little.
Capital investment in China raises 50% of GDP; almost half of GDP is reinvested every year in real
estate, commercial residential, infrastructure and cheap loans from State owned banks. All this
investment is unsustainable because of the massive excess capacity. Investments have already
started to fall and even manufacturing investment is going to fall. Without an economic reform
and an increase of final consumption, GDP will fall in China from 10% to below 5%. China also still
needs to move millions of poor farmers to the modern urban industrial sector, face the problems of
pollution and create jobs for millions of young graduates. Will the new political leaders realise that
the economic model of China is unsustainable? Prof. Roubini’s concern is that China’s leadership
of seven members is very competent but cautious. China does not have a strong leader, but is
governed through consensus among the leadership.
8
Prof. Roubini then analyses the rest of the emerging markets in the world and compares their
potential growth rate of 5 - 6% in the last years to the ones of the eurozone (1.5 - 2%), Japan (1.5%),
the US (2.5 - 3%). Advanced economies progress slower than emerging markets, therefore a larger
share of global GDP will come from emerging market and a larger share of growth in the next
decades will be observed in the emerging markets. And of course, with greater economic trading
and financial power of emerging markets comes also greater geopolitical power. The change in the
global economy is therefore not only an economic change but also a geopolitical change.
The rise of the emerging markets can bring advantages like cheaper services, but also imply
challenges and risks for advanced economies, when specialised skills have to compete with cheaper
labour. Advanced economies have to react by investing in their own people.
But now there is a slow-down in the emerging markets, from 10% to 7% in China, from 9% last
year to 5% this year in India. Brazil is only growing 3% this year in a stable economy. Prof. Roubini
identifies two explanations for the slowing down of the emerging markets in the short term: the
recession in the advanced economies and the moving away from the emerging economies from
market-oriented and structural reforms towards a growth model, which has started in China and
has now become very popular, which he calls “an emerging model of State capitalism”, a model
where State owned enterprises have a large and rising share of economy. State owned banks are
allocating a larger fraction to investment and credit while there are restrictions for the income
of capital, including foreign investment. Prof. Roubini is against protectionism and for a market
oriented economy which, of course, has to be compatible with the social and economic progress
of people.
The final problem Prof. Roubini addresses is the geopolitical risks which after 9.11 cannot be
ignored in a global economy. Recent recessions in the global economy were always associated
with geopolitical risks. The unstable situation in the East, the Middle East and the Southern
Mediterranean can affect the oil prices and investor confidence. Also serious territorial risks on
a bunch of islands in Korea, Japan, China, Indonesia, Vietnam, and Taiwan can potentially lead to
geopolitical tensions in the neighbourhood. But the greatest risk for Prof. Roubini comes from Iran
and, because in a global economy a new emerging power confronting a historically established
power will potentially lead to war, he proposes to ensure a peaceful rise of China.
The issue is sound policy-making to resolve this global financial and political crisis through more
international coordination, cooperation, integration of markets, economies and policies. That’s
where we stand right now.
9
SPECIAL REPORT 22/2012 "DO THE EUROPEAN INTEGRATION FUND AND EUROPEAN REFUGEE
FUND CONTRIBUTE EFFECTIVELY TO THE INTEGRATION OF THIRD-COUNTRY NATIONALS?"
By Rosmarie Carotti
To better help third-country nationals in the EU in
the future, changes are needed. Altogether, the ECA
makes 15 recommendations which suggest that there
should be simplification of the design of these Funds
and a comprehensive assessment of the needs of the
individuals, regardless of whether they come from EU
Member States or third countries. People have, in fact,
many similar needs when they have to integrate into a
new society. An appropriate funding structure should be
designed.
learn the language of the country into which they want
to be integrated.
There also was a lack of coordination with another EU
Fund, the European Social Fund, which finances the same
type of integration activities. The ECA found that most if
not all European Integration Fund’s measures could be
covered by the European Social Fund.
Despite all these problems the responsible authorities
and Member States are mostly fulfilling their key
functions. However, because there were delays in the
adoption of the legislation there was late submission of
the programmes. In the first years there were relatively
low rates of implementation, only 66 and 76% in 2007
and 2008 respectively.
The European Integration Fund and the European Refugee
Fund are two Funds which are part of the programme
on solidarity and management of migration flows. They
amount to € 1.5 billion in the period 2007-2013.
The ECA audited the design of these Funds,
reviewed the management and control
systems in the Member States and in the
Commission, and examined 22 projects onthe-spot.
There are four key recommendations made
by the ECA:
First, there should be simplification in the
design of the Funds with due consideration
of proportionality to the amounts involved.
The ECA found that most of the individual
projects audited were successful, but
that their cumulative contribution to the
integration of third-country nationals could
not be measured.
The Commission should set up compulsory
common indicators and Member States
should set target values for national
programmes.
The reasons for that were that the Member
States did not set proper targets or
indicators for the annual programmes. There
was a report by the Commission which was supposed to
cover the issue of effectiveness, but that report did not
provide enough information for the Funds to be steered
or appropriately directed.
The Commission should carry out a
comprehensive assessment of the integration
needs of the individuals, regardless of whether they have
EU or third-country nationality.
The Commission and the Member States should ensure
that these Funds work hand in hand with other EU Funds,
especially the European Social Fund.
Different factors have hampered the effectiveness of
the Funds: the programme design was fragmented,
there were multiple Funds and the Member States had
to set annual programmes. On top there was also a long
chain of controls performed by three Member States’
authorities, causing an administrative burden which was
disproportionate to the amounts involved.
The Commission has already proposed some important
changes for the next financial programming period, that
include some of the recommendations issued by the ECA.
This will resolve some of the problems identified for the
effective integration of third-country nationals and allow
better use of European Funds. However the fundamental
problem of overlap between the European Integration
and the European Social Fund has not been addressed.
The second major problem was that there was a splitting
of the funding between various target groups. This
created problems for the beneficiaries. It is not efficient
if an educational centre has to distinguish between
migrants who are covered by the Integration Fund and
refugees who are covered by the Refugee Fund when
organising training. They all are people who need to
In Mr Cvikl’s personal view, these changes are needed if
a better utilisation of EU funds and the taxpayers’ money
is to be achieved and if third-country nationals are to be
helped to fully integrate into our society.
10
Par
Nicola Scafarto, juriste au service juridique de la CdCE
Pietro Russo, magistrat italien et actuellement Membre italien de la CdCE
Le Journal donne la parole à trois collègues de la Cour qui ont contribué
de manière significative au premier commentaire en langue italienne
sur les dispositions relatives à la version consolidée des Traîtées de
l'Union européenne à la suite de l'entrée en vigueur du Traîté de Lisbonne
(1er décembre 2009)
INTRODUCTION
Par Nicola Scafarto, juriste au service juridique de la CCE
Le 1 décembre 2009, avec l’entrée en vigueur du traité de Lisbonne, l’Union
européenne (UE) est entrée dans une nouvelle étape de son processus
d’intégration économique et politique.
Comme le président de la Commission, José Manuel Barroso, l’a dit dans la préface
de l’ouvrage, « Le traité de Lisbonne représente le sommet d’un processus de réforme duré plus que 20
ans. Ce processus a transformé la Communauté économique européenne (CEE), essentiellement basée
sur une union douanière et un noyau de politiques communes en une Union fondée sur des valeurs et
principes fondamentaux qui sont partagés parmi ses États membres, Union visant à garantir la paix, la
liberté, la solidarité ainsi que le développement économique et social durable ».
L’ampleur des changements introduits par le traité de Lisbonne (par exemple, l’institution de l’UE
qui se substitue et succède à la CE, la division du cadre du droit primaire en deux traités, le traité
sur l’UE (TUE) et le traité sur le fonctionnement de l’UE (TFUE), l’abolition du troisième pilier sur la
coopération judiciaire et policière en matière pénale) a provoqué la parution de nombreux ouvrages
dans les différents pays. Les ouvrages ont pris forme différente, essentiellement monographie et
commentaire.
En ce qui concerne la littérature juridique italienne, le traité de Lisbonne a formé l’objet d’un
commentaire paru aux éditions juridiques « Simone » sous le titre de CODICE DELL’UNIONE
EUROPEA OPERATIVO (ISBN 978-88-244-3171-2). Il s’agit d’un commentaire article par article au
TUE et au TFUE.
L’ouvrage, adressé essentiellement aux praticiens (juges, avocats, fonctionnaires de l’administration
publique qui doivent appliquer chaque jour le droit de l’Union), vise à représenter un guide le plus
complet possible à la compréhension du droit primaire de l’Union, dans sa version «consolidée»
suite à l’entrée en vigueur du traité de Lisbonne.
Le CODICE OPERATIVO vise aussi à combler un vide dans la littérature juridique italienne, où
manquait un commentaire mis à jour (la dernière publication remontant à 2004).
Les commentaires des articles du CODICE ont été rédigés sous la direction du Professeur Carlo CURTI
GIALDINO par un groupe de 99 auteurs dont la majorité (60 personnes) est issue de la fonctionne
publique européenne. À remarquer est la participation d’un nombre important de référendaires
de la Cour de justice, du Tribunal et du Tribunal de la fonction publique, ainsi que de membres ou
d’anciens membres des services juridiques de la Commission, du Parlement européen et de la Cour
de comptes ainsi que du membre italien de la Cour des comptes. Le reste des collaborateurs vient
du milieu universitaire, de la magistrature etc.
11
Les collaborateurs ont été choisis dans le but de privilégier, dans la rédaction des commentaires,
une approche pratique, fondée sur la jurisprudence et la pratique des Institutions européennes,
laissant aux solutions interprétatives proposées par la doctrine la tâche d’expliquer les points sur
lesquels la jurisprudence ne s’est pas encore prononcée.
Les commentaires contenus dans le CODICE OPERATIVO ont été rédigés en tenant compte de
certains critères généraux élaborés par le prof. CURTI GIALDINO. En particulier, chaque article des
traités est expliqué selon un même schéma qui permet de saisir l’origine de la disposition, sa place
dans le système, son but, le champ d’application, les développements législatifs et jurisprudentiels.
Chaque commentaire est complété par une bibliographie.
Pour le reste, les auteurs ont été laissé libre d’exprimer leur propre sensibilité juridique et leurs
opinions, dans le but de recherche une approche critique et d’offrir au lecteur plusieurs solutions
interprétatives.
Quand le directeur de l’ouvrage m’a invité à donner ma contribution au CODICE OPERATIVO,
j’étais fonctionnaire de la Commission européenne, affecté à l’unité « affaires juridiques » de la DG
ESTAT. Comme j’étais beaucoup impliqué dans le processus l législatif et les procédures internes
de la Commission, je connaissais bien le fonctionnement interne de l’institution. C’est pourquoi
j’ai été appelé à rédiger les commentaires aux articles 244 à 250 TFUE, 337, 338, 357 TFUE. Il
s’agit, essentiellement, des articles qui règlement le fonctionnement interne de la Commission
européenne, de l’article sur les pouvoirs d’information de la Commission, de l’article sur la
production de statistique européennes et, enfin, de l’article sur l’entrée en vigueur du TFUE.
Concernant le fonctionnement interne de la Commission, le traité de Lisbonne n’a pas apporté
des changements significatifs par rapport à ce qui était prévu dans le traité CE. La seule différence
digne de mention est représentée par l’article 244 TFUE, qui énonce les principes sur lesquels
aurait du se fonder le nouveau système de rotation des membres de la Commission à établir à
l’unanimité par le Conseil européen. En effet, une des nouveautés du traité de Lisbonne était
représentée par la réduction du nombre des commissaires qui aurait du se vérifier à partir du 1er
novembre 2014 (article 17 paragraphe 5 TUE : « À partir du 1er novembre 2014, la Commission est
composée d’un nombre de membres, y compris son président et le haut représentant de l’Union pour
les affaires étrangères et la politique de sécurité , correspondant aux deux tiers du nombre d’États
membres, à moins que le Conseil européen, statuant à l’unanimité, ne décide de modifier ce nombre ».
J’ai utilisé le conditionnel parce que cette disposition est destinée à ne pas être appliquée. En effet,
afin de tenir compte des inquiétudes soulevées par certains États membres, le Conseil européen
du 18/19 juin 2009 a confirmé la décision du Conseil européen du 11/12 décembre 2008 (« En ce
qui concerne la composition de la Commission, le Conseil européen rappelle que les traités en vigueur
exigent la réduction du nombre des membres de la Commission en 2009. Le Conseil européen convient
que, à condition que le traité de Lisbonne entre en vigueur, une décision sera prise, conformément aux
procédures juridiques nécessaires, pour que la Commission puisse continuer de comprendre un national
de chaque État membre »). Par conséquent, dans les prochaines années la Commission continuera
très vraisemblablement à être composée par un membre pour chaque État membre.
Concernant les commentaires aux articles 337, 338 et 357 TFUE, il faut dire que lesdits articles
représentent la simple reproduction des articles 284, 285 et 311 TCE. Par conséquent, dans mes
commentaires je me suis « limité » à reconstruire la façon où les dispositions correspondantes ont
été appliquées par les institutions et le juge de l’Union.
En conclusion, j’ai trouvé cette expérience très intéressante et enrichissante. J’espère que le résultat
de cet exercice pourra résulter intéressant et utile aux lecteurs.
12
ART. 318 TFEU: FOCUS ON RESULTS
By Paolo Giusta
Performance management expert
Senior Auditor, Chamber I
Since the 2000 administrative reform, the Commission has set out a huge performance management
machinery, aimed at increasing the focus on the effects of action carried out at EU level, rather than
on processes and procedures only. Part of this apparatus are notably: the strategic planning cycle,
whereby all Commission departments define objectives to achieve and report on progress yearly;
performance information for each policy area in the documents accompanying the Commission’s
proposal on the annual budget, based on the idea that EU monies should be allocated based on the
objectives they contribute to achieve; ex-ante impact assessment of policy initiatives and ex-post
evaluation of pieces of legislation and of spending programmes.
With some notable exceptions, such as the 20-20-20 climate and energy targets1, for quite a number
of years, these new instruments have largely been a paper exercise, rather than playing a role in
the decision-making process, in particular the budgetary one2, mainly due to the lack of interest by
Commission managers – and by the budget authority, whose main indicator to allocate budget for
the subsequent year has been the implementation rate in the previous financial exercise. Gradually,
and indeed recently, performance information has started becoming a matter of greater importance.
A series of factors helped in this process: the financial and economic crisis, which sent harshly the
message that every euro counts, hence not only should the EU budget be spent according to the
rules, but it should actually impact the lives of EU citizens; a new chapter on "Getting results from
EU budget” in the Court of Auditor’s annual report, since the 2010 one, whereby the Court assesses
the performance management systems as designed and operated by the Commission; and a new
provision in Article 318 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), inserted
by the Lisbon Treaty, requiring the Commission to present each year an evaluation report on the
Union’s finances based on the results achieved, to support the discharge process.
The first of such reports, relating to the financial year 2010, was produced by the Commission in
February 20123, and only covered two policy areas, education and culture, and research. The Court
tersely welcomed the report in its Opinion No 4/20124: “The report is vague, short on substance
and, consequently, adds limited value”. The timing was also not optimal, just weeks before the 2011
discharge resolution by Parliament.
Parliament, for its part, did not much appreciate the report either, considering, in its resolution on
discharge to Commission for the financial year 2010, that “the coverage and contents of the first
evaluation report do not live up to what could be expected of an evaluation report required by the
TFEU.”5
1 In March 2007, the European Council endorsed the following objectives for 2020, proposed by the
Commission: reduce greenhouse gas emissions by at least 20% compared to 1990 levels, increase the share of
renewable energy in our final energy consumption to 20%, and achieve a 20% increase in energy efficiency. These
objectives were also taken on board by the Europe 2020 strategy (See COM(2010) 2020, p.32).
2 The OECD refers to this approach as “Presentational performance budgeting” – See OECD Policy Brief “Performance Budgeting: A Users’ Guide”, March 2008, http://www.oecd.org/governance/budgetingandpublicexpenditures/40357919.pdf.
3 COM(2012) 40.
4 OJ C 179 of 20.6.2012, p. 1, paragraphs 4 and 16.
5 Resolution of the European Parliament of 10 May 2012 with observations forming an integral part of its Decision
on discharge in respect of the implementation of the general budget of the European Union for the financial year
2010, Section III — Commission and executive agencies (OJ L 286 of 17.10.2012, p. 31), paragraph 99.
13
The second evaluation report6 has recently been published on 21 November 2012 and has a much
more comprehensive scope: indeed, it covers all the policy headings of the current multi-annual
financial framework (MFF). It draws on results of evaluations carried out for the policy areas under
the various headings. Nevertheless, reference to objectives, when it is made, continues to be vague
and the report only contains two result indicators (related to research), whereas in its 293-page
annex7 result indicators are not presented systematically, which makes it impossible for the reader
to actually assess the achievement of the objectives set.
The second evaluation report, on which the Court will take a stance in near future, as it was the case
for the first of such reports, also contains some Sindications for its future evolution8:
−
Expanding the scope to efficiency of expenditure, on top of effectiveness, and provide the
budgetary authority with “indication if the financial programmes are on track or if there needs
to be adjustment”;
−
Defining a common framework to monitor progress throughout the life a spending programme,
with objectives and indicators covering both effectiveness and efficiency. This framework
should, according to the Commission “be coherent and draw from both the Commission's
annual reporting instruments [the annual activity reports under the strategic planning cycle]
and its evaluation work”. This is good news, considering that the performance information
(objectives and indicators) used by the strategic planning function still differ from the one
used by the evaluators in many Commission departments;
−
A better timing, allowing the discharge authority to have the report available well in advance
of the discharge procedure. This year, the 2011 report came essentially at the same time as the
Court’s annual report. Even better, as the Parliament requested, if the report were produced
still earlier, to allow the Court to present its observations on the evaluation report at the same
time as the Court’s annual report9.
The way the Commission produces, uses, and disseminate performance information is improving.
The European Parliament is taking this matter more and more seriously, deeming that “performance
is as important as legality and regularity”10.
Yet, a dramatic improvement in the way performance information is produced and used by EU
institutions is still needed in my opinion. The new multiannual financial programming exercise
offers a great occasion in this respect, the occasion to begin with the end in mind and to agree on
such an end.
For the first time, clearer objectives and performance indicators to measure them could be defined
for the 2014-2020 MFF – and will probably be for some programmes such as Horizon 2020 – ahead
of the beginning of the spending. Indeed, it is difficult, if not impossible, to report on results, as
the Commission endeavoured to do in its first two evaluation reports, if these results were not
clearly defined and agreed upon right at the beginning. Even more important, the upcoming
programming period could be taken advantage of to entrench performance information in the
legal bases, to express a real commitment of all institutional actors in the pursuit of common goals.
6 COM (2012) 675.
7 Commission Staff Working Document SWD(2012) 383.
8 COM(2012) 675, Page 2-3
9 Cf. Court’s Opinion No 4/2012, paragraph 15.
10 Resolution on discharge to Commission for the financial year 2010, paragraph 91.
14
COMMENTAIRES SUR LES ARTICLES 285, 286 ET 287 TFUE
Par M. Pietro Russo, magistrat italien et actuellement
Membre iltalien de la CCE
Art. 285 TFUE relatif au rôle et à la composition de la Cour des comptes
Historique : La Cour a été instituée par le traité de Bruxelles de juillet 1975. A l’origine, la création
de la Cour se justifie par l’attribution du pouvoir de décharge envers la Commission au Parlement
européen, par le traité de Luxembourg de 1970, ce pouvoir étant dans les faits exercé sur la base
des contrôles menés par la Cour. Le choix de conférer à la Cour le rang d’institution, lors du traité
de Maastricht, met la Cour, en tant qu’organe de contrôle externe, sur un pied d’égalité avec les
institutions contrôlées et surtout, donne plus de force à ses observations contribuant ainsi à la
protection des intérêts des communautés d’une manière plus adéquate. Ce statut d’institution
européenne emporte des conséquences juridictionnelles en ce que la Cour peut désormais
déclencher des actions en annulation ou des recours en carence. A l’inverse les actes de la Cour
sont désormais susceptibles de renvoi préjudiciel en interprétation ou en validité.
Article 286 relatif au statut des membres de la Cour
Au même titre que pour les membres de la Commission ou de la CJCE, le TFUE encadre la nomination
et le statut des membres de la Cour en cherchant notamment à en garantir l’indépendance et la
compétence, indispensables à un contrôle efficace des finances de l’UE.
En matière de privilèges et immunités le statut des membres de la Cour est similaire à celui des
juges de la CJCE, parallèle renforcé par la prestation de serment des membres devant la CJCE.
Article 287 relatif à la mission et aux modalités d’action de la Cour.
Si les articles 285 et 286 fixent la mission et l’organisation générales de la Cour, l’article 287 précise
l’activité de la Cour ainsi que ces modes d’action et les types de contrôles effectués.
Déclaration d’assurance : la déclaration d’assurance (DAS) a été introduite par le traité de Maastricht,
le traité de Nice précisant par la suite que la DAS pouvait être complétée par des évaluations
spécifiques des principaux secteurs d’activité de l’UE. Après avoir été publiée au JOUE de façon
autonome en 1994 et 1995 la DAS constitue désormais un chapitre du rapport annuel de la Cour. Le
traité d’Amsterdam indique expressément que la Cour devait signaler toute irrégularité identifiée
au cours de ses contrôles.
Contrôles sur pièces et sur place : le pouvoir de demander tout document nécessaire à la conduite
de l’audit aux organismes bénéficiaires a été introduit par le traité d’Amsterdam, lequel n’a
cependant prévu aucune sanction en cas de refus. Les contrôles sur place doivent quant à eux
être menés en collaboration avec les institutions nationales de contrôle (ou tout autre organisme
15
national compétent), ces dernières devant communiquer préalablement à la Cour leur intention
de participer le cas échéant à l’audit. Le refus d’un État membre de permettre à la Cour d’effectuer
son travail constituerait une violation du droit de l’UE qui autoriserait la Commission à initier une
procédure en infraction. Cette hypothèse s’est vérifiée récemment lorsqu’un État membre a refusé
à la Cour la possibilité d’effectuer des contrôles relatifs à la coopération administrative en matière
de TVA. L’affaire a été portée devant la CJCE qui a jugé, dans un arrêt en chambre plénière du 15
Novembre 2011, que la Cour était compétente pour effectuer les contrôles qu’elle avait prévu dans
la mesure où ceux-ci sont liés aux revenus de la Communauté.
Rapport annuel et autres productions: l'article 287 prévoit la publication au JOUE d’un rapport
annuel. Celui-ci inclut l’ensemble des revenus et dépenses de l’Union sans se limiter à ceux inscrits
au budget général. L’article 287 prévoit également la possibilité pour la Cour de présenter ses
observations sur des questions spécifiques au travers de rapports spéciaux et d’avis. La publication
des rapports spéciaux au JOUE est laissée à l’appréciation de la Cour. Les rapports publiés sont
examinés par le Parlement et le Conseil en même temps que le rapport annuel lors de la procédure
de décharge.
Fonctionnement collégial de la Cour: le principe de collégialité est inscrit dans l’article 287 et repris
dans le règlement intérieur de la Cour. Ce même règlement fixe les divers pouvoirs du président de la
Cour, notamment en matière d’organisation et d’animation de la Cour. Néanmoins ces prérogatives
ne remettent pas en cause le principe de collégialité.
Le traité de Nice a introduit la possibilité pour la Cour de déléguer l’adoption de catégories de
rapports et/opinions à des chambres, à l’exception des rapports annuels sur le budget de l’UE et sur
les fonds européens de développement qui doivent être adoptés en séance plénière.
Compétences consultatives: l’article 287 prévoit également une assistance au Parlement et
au Conseil qui exercent un contrôle de nature politique sur l’exécution du budget de l’UE. Les
compétences consultatives de la Cour se traduisent par la publication d’opinions facultatives. Il
convient de noter que le TFUE prévoit également le cas d’opinions obligatoires dans le cadre de la
procédure normative en matière de gestion des ressources financières et de lutte contre la fraude
(articles 322 et 325 TFUE).
16
PRESENTATION OF THE ECA 2011 ANNUAL REPORT
IN THE CZECH REPUBLIC
By Jan Kinšt, Member of the Court
Photo: NKU. CZ
The Budgetary Control Committee discussed very
thoroughly the ECA 2011 Annual Report for more than
two hours. A number of questions from all MPs present
followed our presentation and, not surprisingly, a vast
majority of them related to the negative result of the
Czech AA audit. Such a critical report is always a ground
for a tough exchange of views between the coalition
and opposition MPs. We tried to be as much balanced as
possible, based ourselves rigorously on the report and
pacified some extreme views from both sides. We also
tried to turn the critical attention of the MPs to the work
of managing authorities, whose role in the operational
control of the projects supported from the Structural
Funds is crucial. The Court’s observations were much
supported by the Vice-President of the NKÚ who was
present at the meeting. We were very pleased that based
upon the Court’s report, the Czech AA adopted an action
plan to remedy the key organisational hindrances and
operational and methodological deficiencies in their
work. As a conclusion, the committee’s MPs invited the
Minister of Finance, under whose responsibility the AA
falls, to be informed on the progress in that plan.
From right to left : Mr Jan Kinšt, Member of the Court and Mr Marek
Brychcin, ECA auditor
While it was usual in the past that the presentations of
the Court’s Annual Reports took place in Prague some
weeks or even months after its official publication, this
year, there was great interest to hear about the Court’s
audit findings as soon as possible. No doubt that such
interest was motivated by the “appearance“ of the Czech
Republic in the Court’s report. That was also why I asked
our colleague Marek Brychcín, an auditor from Chamber
II responsible for the audit of the Czech Audit Authority
for Structural Funds (AA), to accompany me this year and
to present the conclusions of that audit in more detail.
The presentation for the Parliament’s European Affairs
Committee took place on the same day in the afternoon.
While the meeting was shorter and calmer than the one
with the Budgetary Control Committee, the MPs present
demonstrated their interest in the matter and requested
a further explanation of the Court’s conclusions. They
asked, among other questions, about the selection
of Member States to be audited, whether the Czech
Republic is the only country criticised in the Annual
Report (of course not!) and about the most common
types of errors in the areas of shared management. Some
deputies also rightly criticised the often too complex EU
and national legislation, which may be misunderstood by
the grant recipients, leading to errors. A criticism of too
many operational programmes operated in the Czech
Republic in the current programming period resounded
several times as well.
The first presentation took place at the Czech Supreme
Audit Office (NKÚ) premises on 14 November 2012, in the
presence of the acting Vice-President, a complete college
of Members and key directors. During the discussion
which followed our presentation there was an obvious
interest in both the conclusions of the Court’s report
and the technical questions regarding the underlying
methodology. The Czech NKÚ belongs to those SAIs
which pay sufficient attention to the audit of EU funds
spent in the country. They publish a number of special
reports from this area every year as well as the EU report
summarising the conclusions of their own audits and
those carried out by ECA. And, in the second part of the
meeting, in order not to be only in a position of listeners,
the NKÚ presented their recently developed IT tool for
the ex ante identification of potential erroneous public
procurements (the area most prone to risks of errors in
the EU as well as in the Czech context).
To conclude, the presentation of the ECA 2011 Annual
Report was received with high attention in the Czech
Republic this year, not only by the national supreme
auditors and legislators but it also attracted a lot of
media attention. Besides a broad internet and printed
media coverage, a news item about the Court’s Annual
Report was included in the evening prime time national
broadcast and TV news. And several days later, the
Court’s findings related to the Czech Republic were
discussed in a popular TV political talk show where I got
an opportunity to further explain our audit observations.
The next day (15 November 2012) was dedicated to the
presentations for the national Parliament, particularly for
its Budgetary Control and European Affairs Committees.
17
Source: Barbara Žejavac,
archive of the National Assembly
By Andreja Rovan, Private office attaché of Mr Cvikl
On 7th December, Mr Milan Martin Cvikl visited his home country to
formally hand over a copy of the Annual Report 2011 to the speakers of
both Chambers of the Slovene Parliament, the National Assembly and the
National Council, and to present the details to responsible Committees.
The speaker of the National Assembly, Mr Gregor Virant, was very
interested to hear the main messages of the Annual Report 2011
as regards trends of all headings of the European budget as well as
findings and recommendations for Slovenia. In the Speaker’s view the
recommendations of the Court are extremely important for better use of
the European Union funds, and he highlighted the role of the Assembly
in the preparation for the issuance of the first national declaration of
assurance.
Mr Milan Martin Cvikl hands over the Annual Report
2011 to Mr Gregor Virant, Speaker of the National
There are two committees that have a formal role in the audit of the
Assembly of the Republic of Slovenia
Government budget and EU spending – the Committee for Surveillance
of Public Finance and the EU Affairs Committee. The Committee for
Surveillance of Public Finance discusses the Slovenian Court of Audit’s Annual and Special Reports. The EU Affairs
Committee, based on specific parliamentary acts in Slovenia, has the role to transpose Government positions into
Slovene positions to be presented to the EU institutions and it also deals with issue of subsidiarity. Both committees
followed Mr Cvikl’s initiative to organise this year already the third joint formal meeting to discuss the Annual Report of
the Court, in line with the implications of the Lisbon Treaty. At this year meeting other key stakeholders also attended
– such as representatives from the Government (in particular Ministry of finance, Ministry of economic development
and technology, Ministry of foreign affairs, Cabinet of the Prime minister) as well as the first deputy President of the
Slovenian Court of Audit.
Mr Cvikl outlined the aim of the audit of the Court of Auditors regarding the financial year 2011 and gave a detailed
presentation of the findings, recommendations and trends in the fourth year of the multiannual financial framework
for individual chapters of the European budget. In the last part he had presented methodology and provided overview
of special reports issued in 2012. Participants welcomed very much examples that were presented for each heading
of the European Union budget as they are very illustrative and help the message of the Court to reach those that have
power to react. The President of the EU Affairs Committee was worried about the high number of errors in the samples
found by the Court, whereas the president of the Committee for Surveillance of Public Finance expressed her concern
regards the increase in the last years as well as the fact that Court had reviewed transactions that had already been
controlled by European Commission and Member States.
At the end of his visit, Mr Milan Martin Cvikl handed over the Annual
Report 2010 to the Speaker of the National Council of the Republic of
Slovenia Mr Blaž Kavčič. Views were exchanged on the situation in the
European Union, the latest developments in the Euro area and the use
of national and European funds. The National Council is the second
chamber of the Parliament representing different parts of society.
The members of the National Council have only been elected recently
and so for this reason a discussion on the Annual Report 2011 would
Mr Cvikl hands over the Annual Report 2011 to Mr Blaž Kavčič, Speaker
of the National Council of the Republic of Slovenia.
18
Source: Milan Skledar,
archive of the National Council
It was noted that Slovenia is in the group of Member States that are fully in line with requirements regards financing
of the common budget, and on the side of EU expenditure there is still some room for improvement. Members of the
Committee for Surveillance of Public Finance also commented that the discussion with the Members of the European
Court of Auditors during their Annual seminar in October contributed to a better understanding of the Court’s findings
and helping them to better define their role and future steps. At the end of the meeting a formal decision was adopted
that both Committees had been informed about the 2011 ECA Annual Report.
be organised early in 2013, together with the recommendations deriving from forthcoming special report on the
effective contribution of EU funds to the integration of third-county nationals.
During the visit there was also some interest from the media. Mr. Cvikl had an interview for radio, the main newspapers
reported about general trends for European budget as well as Court’s findings for Slovenia and there was live TV
broadcasting of the joint session of the EU Affairs Committee and the Committee for Surveillance of Public Finance.
The journalists reported about Court’s recommendations but also about other issues such as financial crisis and
increased public sensitivity to proper use of national and European funds.
PRESENTATION DU RAPPORT ANNUEL 2011 EN ESPAGNE
Par le Cabinet de Mr. Tomé
Au cours de la semaine du 19 au 23 novembre, le membre espagnol de la
Cour a présenté à Madrid les conclusions des rapports annuels relatifs à
léxercice 2011.
Le mardi 20, M. Tomé Muguruza a été invité par la commission mixte pour
l’Union européenne du Parlement espagnol. Pendant près de deux heures, il a
expliqué aux députés et aux sénateurs présents l’approche et la méthodologie
dáudit suivies par la Cour des comptes pour mener à bien son travail, ainsi
que les résultats et les principales conclusions pour 2011.
Le jeudi 22 novembre, au palais du Sénat espagnol, les rapports ont été
présentés aux membres de la Cour des comptes espagnole ainsi qu’aux
membres des organismes de contrôle externe des communautés autonomes
espagnoles. MM. Tomé Muguruza, García-Escudero - Président du Sénat - et Álvarez de Miranda - Président de la Cour
des comptes espagnole - ont abordé les nouvelles réalités économiques envisagées par l’Union européenne et les
nouveaux défis en matière de contrôle et d’audit auxquelles les institutions de contrôle externe sont confrontées, tout
particulièrement dans le contexte de crise économique et financière qui touche l’Europe.
M.Tomé et M. García Escudero, President du
Senat espagnol
Au cours de cette journée de travail, MM. Ruiz García - Secrétaire général de la CdCE -, Costa de Magalhães - Chef de
cabinet du membre espagnol -, González Bastero - Chef d’unité - et García de Parada Miranda - Attaché du membre
espagnol - ont présenté les résultats de l’exercice 2011, et plus particulièrement les chapitres consacrés à l’agriculture,
aux ressources naturelles et à la cohésion, à l’énergie et aux transports. Ils ont également abordé la question de la
nouvelle méthodologie DAS et de la nature juridique et de contrôle des entreprises communes de l’Union européenne.
Durant cette semaine, M. Tomé Muguruza a aussi rencontré le
ministre espagnol des finances, M. Montoro, et le secrétaire
d´État aux affaires européennes du ministère espagnol des
affaires étrangères et de la coopération, M. Méndez de Vigo, afin
de leur remettre les rapports annuels 2011 et de leur présenter
les résultats concernant l’Espagne. Une copie des rapports et de
la note d’information leur a été remise.
De gauche à droite: M. Alvarez de Miranda, Président de la Cour
des comptes dÉspagne, M. García Escudero et M.Tomé
19
PRESENTATION DU RAPPORT ANNUEL 2011 AUX AUTORITÉS
LUXEMBOURGEOISES le 19 novembre 2012
Photo copyright. F. Aussems
Par Rosmarie Carotti
Comme chaque année M. Henri Grethen, Membre luxembourgeois
de la Cour, a présenté le rapport annuel de la Cour des comptes
européenne aux autorités nationales, mais cette année il a mis
en place un dispositif particulier pour améliorer le débat et les
discussions qui peuvent s’ensuivre d’une telle rencontre.
Au lieu de trois présentations, une destinée à la Cour des comptes
nationale, l’autre aux médias luxembourgeois et la troisième
destinée aux Membres de la commission de l’exécution budgétaire
au Luxembourg il n’y en a eu qu’une. Y ont assisté une douzaine de
parlementaires de la commission du contrôle budgétaire, la Cour des
comptes nationale avec son président et une douzaine de journalistes. La présentation a eu lieu dans la salle des
Membres de la Cour des comptes européenne à Luxembourg.
Cette année, il n’y avait rien de particulier se référant au Luxembourg dans le rapport annuel. Les questions posées
étaient donc essentiellement d’ordre méthodologique et économique. D’ordre méthodologique, car la méthodologie
des travaux de la Cour est parfois difficile à transmettre à ceux qui doivent par la suite rédiger les articles. Il faut savoir
distinguer entre erreurs, fraudes et irrégularités, et connaitre le concept d’erreur significative.
Cette année, la question principale discutée était l’enjeu du contrôle budgétaire dans le contexte de la récession
économique en Europe. M. Grethen a expliqué que le taux d’erreur qui portait sur le Chapitre 5 — Politique régionale,
énergie et transports- était légèrement plus bas que l’année précédente et que les dépenses et les recettes de l’Union
européenne étaient en de bonnes mains.
Le fait d’avoir réuni autour d’une table 30-35 personnes entre parlementaires, représentants de la Cour des comptes
nationale et journalistes a permis d’avoir une discussion beaucoup plus diversifiée, controversée et concrète. C’était
une expérience très positive qui pourrait servir d’exemple en d’autres occasions.
Pour résumer, le rapport annuel a été reçu comme un document à haute valeur ajoutée qui permet de valider les
dépenses et les recettes de l’Europe de la part d’un auditeur externe.
PRESENTATION OF THE COURT’S 2011 ANNUAL REPORT IN SWEDEN
By Peter Eklund, Private Office of Mr Wessberg
Mr Wessberg, presented the Court’s 2011 Annual Report firstly to the EU Affairs Committee
of the Swedish Parliament and then to the Swedish National Audit Office on November 7th.
Mr Wessberg delivered the key messages from the Annual Report and covered the audit
findings of particular interest to Sweden. Copies of the Annual Report were distributed in
both Swedish and English.
Mr Hans Gustaf Wessberg,
Member of the Court
On November 8th Mr Wessberg presented the Annual Report to the Finance Ministry.
On 14th November Mr Wessberg made a presentation on the EU budget, with the Annual Report 2011 as a starting
point, at SNS (Centre for Business and Policy Studies) in Brussels.
Finally, Mr Wessberg presented the Annual Report to the Swedish Government on 15th November. It was a full cabinet
meeting with 25 ministers including the Prime Minister, Mr Reinfeldt. There was a fruitful discussion which focused
mainly on the most frequent types of error and why a positive trend of a falling error rate was broken and what could
be concluded.
The Swedish Parliament’s Finance Committee has requested a separate presentation of the Annual Report 2011 this
year, which will most probably take place in January 2013.
20
PRESENTATION OF THE 2011 ANNUAL REPORT
IN THE GERMAN BUNDESTAG
By Dagmar Freudenstein, Private Office of Mr Noack
In December 2012, Mr Noack had the opportunity to present the Court’s Annual Report 2011 in the German Bundestag
(the lower house of the German parliament). Mr Noack presented the Annual Report to the Committee of Accounting
Control. The originally planned meeting with the Committee for European Affairs was postponed due to a vote of the
Bundestag on the release of a tranche of payments for Greece. Instead, the Committee for European Affairs is planning
to visit the Court of Auditors in early March 2013.
Due to time constraints Mr Noack briefly explained that this year’s report contains a new chapter on rural development.
He also mentioned the error rate in structural funds expenditure, which shows an improving trend over the past years.
Concerning the Court’s next annual work programme Mr Noack announced that an audit of the developments in the
regulatory and supervisory systems launched by the Commission to address the crisis in the banking sector is planned
for 2013.
During the presentation one Member of the Committee mentioned the interview of Mr Noack on the audit of the
European Stability Mechanism (ESM) in the Court’s Journal (November issue). He enquired why Mr Noack had proposed
to inform specifically the European Parliament about ESM’s activities. Mr Noack replied that he intended to keep all
interested parties as well informed as possible about the business of the ESM, except in cases where confidentiality
requirements prevented him from doing so. Mr Noack explained that the ESM Board of Auditors had relatively
little experience in auditing similar mechanisms and that the knowledge of the German Bundesrechnungshof in
auditing the IMF will be particularly useful in this respect. This was confirmed by Mr Graf, the representative of the
Bundesrechnungshof on the ESM Board of Auditors, who also attended the hearing.
The meeting ended with the firm intention to continue these by now well established regular exchanges between
the Bundestag and the Court of Auditors. They are considered by both institutions a useful and informative practice.
PRESENTATION OF THE COURT’S 2011 ANNUAL REPORT IN ROMANIA
By Patrick Weldon, Head of Private Office of Mr Ispir
Mr. Ispir presenting the 2011 Annual report to the Members of the
Romanian Court of Accounts
Mr. Ispir presented the Court’s Annual Report for 2011 to
the Romanian authorities over the 12th to 16th of November.
Separate presentations were made at the Romanian Court of
Auditors, one to the College and top managers of the Court
and another to the managers of the Audit Authority, which
is attached to the Romanian Court. A third presentation
was made in front of a larger audience composed mainly
of managers of various public institutions involved in the
implementation of EU funds, at central and local level. The
latter was organised by the Ministry of European Affairs, who
ensured that the event was highly visible and received good
press coverage.
This year’s presentations comprised the main messages of the
Annual Report, as well as focusing on the way Romania is reflected in the report. Apart from mentions of Romania in
the chapters regarding agriculture and cohesion, information was added from most recent special reports of the Court,
where Romania was among the countries visited by our auditors.
As in previous years, there were questions regarding the main topics presented, most of the questions showing that
the presentations made regularly in the past years helped the participants to improve their general knowledge and
understanding of the Court’s work.
Due to general elections in Romania on 9 December 2012, the Parliament was already in recess at the time when
the presentations were made. It was therefore agreed that a separate presentation of the Annual Report to the new
Romanian Parliament will be made at a later date, most likely in the first quarter of 2013.
21
E
FOCUS
A
SPECIAL REPORT N°17/2012
THE EUROPEAN DEVELOPMENT FUND (EDF) CONTRIBUTION TO A
SUSTAINABLE ROAD NETWORK IN SUB-SAHARAN AFRICA
Roads are essential for regional integration, economic growth, social development,
effective public administration and security. The Court examined whether the EDF
has contributed to sustainability of the road network in sub-Saharan Africa. The
Court concludes that the Commission is partially effective in promoting the adoption
and implementation by partner countries of the policy reforms that are required
to address the existing obstacle to a sustainable road network. The Court makes
recommendations that aim at focussing EDF funding where it can have the greatest
impact and improving the way the Commission uses conditionality, policy dialogue
and technical cooperation.
IS STRUCTURAL MEASURES FUNDING FOR MUNICIPAL WASTE
MANAGEMENT INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECTS EFFECTIVE IN HELPING
MEMBER STATES ACHIEVE EU WASTE POLICY OBJECTIVES?
Municipal waste if not collected, treated and disposed of properly can cause negative
environmental impacts. As a result, the EU has introduced common standards and
targets in the form of directives and co-finances waste management infrastructures
in specific regions. In this report the Cour examined whether these investments
in infrastructure have been effective and have helped to achieve EU waste policy
objectives.
COST-EFFECTIVENESS OF COHESION POLICY INVESTMENTS
IN ENERGY EFFICIENCY
The Court assessed whether Cohesion Policy investments in energy efficiency were
cost-effective. The Court concludes that the right conditions in programming and
financing had not been set and that the audited projects in public buildings had a
long average planned payback period (around 50 years). The Court recommends that
the Commission make the Cohesion Policy funding for energy efficiency measures
subject to a proper needs assessment, regular monitoring and the use of comparable
performance indicators as well as the use of transparent project selection criteria and
standard investment costs per unit of energy to be saved, with a maximum acceptable
simple payback period.
22
E
FOCUS
A
DO THE EUROPEAN INTEGRATION FUND AND EUROPEAN REFUGEE
FUND CONTRIBUTE EFFECTIVELY TO THE INTEGRATION OF THIRDCOUNTRY NATIONALS?
This report assesses whether the European Integration Fund and European Refugee
Fund contribute effectively to the integration of third-country nationals in the EU.
It found that while positive results could be observed at the level of individual
audited projects, inadequate systems had been set up to measure the success of the
Funds. The programme design hampered effectiveness and there was inadequate
coordination with other EU funds. The Court recommends, inter alia, simplification
of programming arrangements and a comprehensive assessment of integration
needs regardless of whether migrants have EU or third-country nationality. Based
on this assessment, an appropriate fund(s) structure should be designed (See
article on page 10).
IN JANUARY 2013 THE COURT SAYS :
HELLO TO
GOODBYE TO
HILI
Clayton
PATTANARO
NAVARRO FONT
Jaime
Claudia
CLEMEN
Francine
VAREIKAITE
Raimonda
IVANES
Olga
MURPHY
Tony
DARMANIN
Stephanie
PETEREIT
Rainer
STEFANOV
Mihail
SUKIENNIK
Woljciech
BORSOS
Peter
ANTINORI
Adriana
KIRILOVA
Kalina
FAZENDA
Maria Filomena
DEMIAN
Marilena
HAUK
Viktor
LOCKHART
Alexander
CALLIXTO
Antonio
VANDAELE
Roland
BONCHEVA
Eva
PETKOV
Vassil
23
Mr KUBIK, MEMBER OF THE COURT, IN POLAND
By Mariusz Pomienski, Head of Private Office
On 24 October 2012 the Polish Ministry of
Finance held a conference on the internal audit
in the public administration to commemorate
the 10th anniversary of the introduction of
this function in the Polish public service. Mr
Augustyn Kubik, Member of the Court, Mr
Meletios Stavrakis – Internal Auditor of the
Court and Mr Mariusz Pomienski – Head of Mr
Kubik’s Private Office participated in the event.
Mr Kubik gave the opening presentation of the
day in which he reflected on the challenges and
achievements of the internal audit in its early
days (2002-2005 Mr Kubik was the Internal
Auditor General of the public administration).
Then he presented the organisation and work
of internal audit of the Court.
On 25-26 October the Supreme Audit Institution
of Poland (NIK) hosted the participants of the
seminar jointly organised by the President of
the NIK and the Polish Member of the ECA. The
seminar was devoted to the Court’s and the NIK’s audit approaches. Among participants were managers and
staff of the Polish government departments responsible for the spending and auditing of the EU funds in
Poland, including ministers and undersecretaries of state.
Conference on the internal audit
Opening addresses were given by Mr Jacek Jezierski - President of the NIK - and Mrs Elzbieta Bienkowska –
Minister of Regional Development. They were followed by a presentation of the Court’s audit approach by
Mr Kubik. The presentation focused on how the Court’s work contributes to better spending of European
taxpayers’ money. Next presentations made the participants familiar with several aspects of the Court’s audit
methodology:
•
•
•
financial and compliance audit (Michal Machowski – Chamber I Directorate),
performance audit (Rafal Czarnecki – Chamber II HUM Unit),
contradictory procedure (Mariusz Pomienski – Private Office of Mr Kubik).
The final presentations of the seminar were
made by the NIK and discussed the NIK’s
audits of the EU funds and the NIK’s new audit
procedure. In the opinion of participants
the conference was a valuable experience
and the ECA auditors’ “audit language” can
be now better understood. This improved
communication will certainly facilitate the
audit process with benefits to both auditors
and auditees.
Seminar organised for the Polish goverment department by NIK and the
Polish Member of the ECA
24
Comment vous procurer le Journal de la Cour des comptes européenne?
Publication gratuite disponible sur le site de EU bookshop :
http://bookshop.europa.eu
How to obtain the Journal of the European Court of Auditors
Free publication:
via EU Bookshop : http://bookshop.europa.eu
© European Union, 2012
Reproduction is authorised provided the source is acknowledged/Reproduction
autorisée à condition de mentionner la source
QJ-AD-13-001-2A-N
Main content
FAREWELL OF MRS SANDOLOVA, MEMBER OF THE COURT
p. 2
SPECIAL REPORT 22/2012 «DO THE EUROPEAN INTEGRATION FUND AND EUROPEAN
REFUGEE FUND CONTRIBUTE EFFECTIVELY TO THE INTEGRATION OF THIRD-COUNTRY NATIONALS?»
p. 10
LA CONTRIBUTION DE LA CDCE AU «CODICE» DELL’UNIONE EUROPEA OPERATIVO”
Par Nicola Scafarto, juriste au service juridique de la CdCE
Pietro Russo, magistrat italien et actuellement Membre iltalien de la CdCE
p. 11
PRESENTATIONS OF THE ECA’S 2011 ANNUAL REPORT
p. 17-21
Follow us on Twitter : @EUAuditorsECA

journal - European Court of Auditors

Transcription

Documents pareils

Ordre du jour | Agenda

A propos des points de report IFR - Aéro

Es-tu ma maman?

Faculty of Engineering

Lina Farra Photography

Calendrier des EMR et des filières

texte 6 entraînement à l`examen

5860 - Les Amis du boulevard Saint

Vous parlez franglais? - Western Michigan University

1153961 SGT DONALD SYDNEY BRUTY FLIGHT ENGINEER

Communiqué de presse Collection d`histoire de l`art n

The Cultural Frontiers of Europe - the Institute for Euroregional Studies