1 / 8

Committee on Budgetary Control 22 January 2008

European Court of Auditors. Committee on Budgetary Control 22 January 2008. DAS 2006. DAS 2006 - Specific assessments concerning legality and regularity of underlying transactions. Functioning of supervisory and control systems. Error range. Less than 2% (below materiality threshold ).

mgrose
Télécharger la présentation

Committee on Budgetary Control 22 January 2008

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. European Court of Auditors Committee on Budgetary Control22 January 2008 DAS 2006

  2. DAS 2006 - Specific assessments concerning legality and regularity of underlying transactions Functioning of supervisory and control systems Error range Less than 2% (below materiality threshold) Satisfactory Partially satisfactory Between 2% and 5% Unsatisfactory Greater than 5%

  3. DAS 2006 – Legality and regularity of underlying transactions Agriculture IACS Pre-accession PHARE/ISPA Administration External Actions EC Revenue Agriculture Agriculture non-IACS External Actions Impl. org. Structural Actions Pre-accession SAPARD

  4. What can the Commission do to improve the situation? • ensure that supervisory and control systems address the risks effectively, both at the level of the Commission and of the Member States; • strengthen in particular the Commission’s ability to mitigate the risk that the control systems in the Member States fail to prevent reimbursement of overstated or ineligible expenditure; • improve mechanisms for recoveries; • improve the quality of DGs’ Activity Reports and the Commission’s Synthesis Report; address the detected deficiencies adequately and ensure continuity in the way information is presented;

  5. What can the Commission do to improve the situation? • implement the Commission’s Action Plan; • ensure suitable indicators assisting the management and helping to gauge improvements over time; • ensure that rules and regulations are clear and sufficient enough to meet Community objectives, while avoiding unnecessary complexity.

  6. ”80% of EU-funds in shared management: what can Member States do to improve the situation?” • Structural Funds: • improvement of the day to day management and implementation of sound closure procedures for the programming period 2000 – 2006; • implementation of the legal framework with respect to the new programming period 2007 – 2013. • CAP expenditure: • specific attention to Cross Compliance requirements; • due consideration to the pertinence of eligibility conditions with the objective of reducing the error rate in the field of Rural Development .

  7. The Court’s contribution • The Court’s revised DAS approach provides clear recognition of improvements in supervisory and control systems. As these improve, more of the assurance is derived from them. • The new definition and treatment of errors updates the methodology so as to take into consideration the latest developments in the legal framework (cross compliance, financial corrections). • The Court’s conclusions and audit results have become more robust and provide a clearer assessment of where weaknesses exist and what is contributing to any error found.

  8. Conclusion: What will make the crucial difference is whether the management’s control mechanisms will be shown to have improvedsufficiently and rules simplifiedenough to bring about a reduction in errors found.

More Related