# CE2004078EN.01024901.xml

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/249 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/249

---

(2004/C 78 E/0252)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-3279/03

by Maurizio Turco (NI) to the Commission

(30 October 2003)

Subject:   Quality checks by the Commission on the Clearance Audit Trail System (CATS) database

Subject:

Knowing that:

| (a) | Extracts from the European Commission's Clearance Audit Trail System (CATS) database, which contains data from the Member States on refunds for exports of Community agricultural products to third countries, were annexed to the supplementary answer to Written Question P-3202/02 (1). |
| --- | --- |

(a)

Extracts from the European Commission's Clearance Audit Trail System (CATS) database, which contains data from the Member States on refunds for exports of Community agricultural products to third countries, were annexed to the supplementary answer to Written Question P-3202/02 (1).

1

| (b) | The supplementary answer to Written Questions E-1477/03-1480/2003 (2) stated:






  — | that the Commission was carrying out a set of quality checks (on the code lists, tallying of overall amounts with annual declarations, compliance with the rules and completeness of the data); |
| --- | --- | --- |

(b)

The supplementary answer to Written Questions E-1477/03-1480/2003 (2) stated:

2

—

that the Commission was carrying out a set of quality checks (on the code lists, tallying of overall amounts with annual declarations, compliance with the rules and completeness of the data);

| — | that the quality of the data was generally adequate for clearance of accounts purposes and; |
| --- | --- |

—

that the quality of the data was generally adequate for clearance of accounts purposes and;

| — | that no errors had been committed by any Member State when indicating the unit of measurement for the amounts exported (kilograms rather than tonnes), but that there had been some easily-identifiable oversights. |
| --- | --- |

—

that no errors had been committed by any Member State when indicating the unit of measurement for the amounts exported (kilograms rather than tonnes), but that there had been some easily-identifiable oversights.

| (c) | The issue of the correct use of the code lists (quality check) is addressed in Written Question E-3113/2003 (3). |
| --- | --- |

(c)

The issue of the correct use of the code lists (quality check) is addressed in Written Question E-3113/2003 (3).

3

| (d) | Examination of the CATS database in relation to refunds on exports to the Vatican City State, Switzerland, Andorra, Liechtenstein and San Maríno in the years 1998-2001 shows that out of a total of EUR 639 421 671,77 refunded for the export of Community products:






  — | EUR 9 067 116,01 were paid in the absence of any indication of the product and the unit of measurement; |
| --- | --- | --- |

(d)

Examination of the CATS database in relation to refunds on exports to the Vatican City State, Switzerland, Andorra, Liechtenstein and San Maríno in the years 1998-2001 shows that out of a total of EUR 639 421 671,77 refunded for the export of Community products:

—

EUR 9 067 116,01 were paid in the absence of any indication of the product and the unit of measurement;

| — | EUR 14 173 353,56 were paid in the absence of any indication of the product; |
| --- | --- |

—

EUR 14 173 353,56 were paid in the absence of any indication of the product;

| — | and EUR 74 115 436,13 were paid in the absence of the unit of measurement; |
| --- | --- |

—

and EUR 74 115 436,13 were paid in the absence of the unit of measurement;

making a total of EUR 97 355 905,7 or 15,23 % of the total volume of export refunds, bearing in mind that this examination did not look into ‘errors’.

In the light of the above, can the Commission indicate:

| 1. | how and by whom the set of quality checks is conducted, or in other words whether it is satisfied with the checks carried out; |
| --- | --- |

1.

how and by whom the set of quality checks is conducted, or in other words whether it is satisfied with the checks carried out;

| 2. | whether it genuinely considers — as it has stated — that the quality of the data is generally adequate for clearance of accounts purposes, or in other words whether it bases clearance activities solely on the declarations made by Member States; |
| --- | --- |

2.

whether it genuinely considers — as it has stated — that the quality of the data is generally adequate for clearance of accounts purposes, or in other words whether it bases clearance activities solely on the declarations made by Member States;

| 3. | whether any investigations into export refunds are currently being conducted by the Court of Auditors and/or OLAF? |
| --- | --- |

3.

whether any investigations into export refunds are currently being conducted by the Court of Auditors and/or OLAF?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(4 December 2003)

(4 December 2003)

The Commission refers the Honourable Member to its answers to his Written Questions E-1477/03 to E-1480/03 (4) and to its answers to his Written Questions E-3113/03 (3) and P-3202/02.

4

3

The Honourable Member claims to base the figures in his written question on an answer given to Written Question P-3202/02. Unfortunately, the Honourable Member has not correctly quoted from this answer since he refers e.g. to an amount of EUR 639 421 671,77 instead of the correct figure of EUR 321 711 242,39 which is the total amount of the refunds paid for exports during the period 1998-2001 in the said countries (5). In fact each amount quoted in the written question is inaccurate and can, therefore, not be confirmed by the Commission and it is not certain how and from where the Honourable Member extracted these figures.

5

The Commission considers that this fact might have an impact on the assessment of the Honourable Member and have an influence on the purpose of his questions.

In light of the above:

| 1. | The Commission receives computer files each year from the Member States concerning details of all individual payments made to the beneficiaries pursuant to Commission Regulation (EC) No 2390/1999 (6). The detailed information is stored in the CATS (7) database.
  CATS is a huge and very detailed database, containing over 137 million data records and around 4,09 billion related number of fields (8). Obviously it is not possible to check all these individual fields. In order to improve the data quality, the Commission has continuously refined the CATS database since its creation, as well as the corresponding Regulation. Data quality is a constant concern and, as a result of the yearly checks, the quality of the computer files is steadily improving.
  As for the specific controls of the data from the financial year 2000 onwards the Commission examines four different quality aspects of the computer files received from the Member States pursuant to Commission Regulation (EC) No 2390/1999.
  Each year, the Commission undertakes a reconciliation of the amounts declared from the Member States with the respective annual declarations. Possible differences need to be justified.
  The second aspect is the respect of code lists. Commission Regulation (EC) No 2390/1999 requires standard codes for a certain number of fields. From the financial year 2002 onwards, compliance with the code lists is automatically checked during the transmission of the computer data to the Commission.
  The third quality aspect includes the completeness of the data supplied by the Member States in respect of the budget posts. From the financial year 2002 onwards, some data elements are already checked during the transmission process.
  The last item within the quality control is the respect of the deadline of 10 February for sending the computer data to the Commission.
  Each year, the Commission communicates the conclusions and findings made in the quality checks to the Member States in order to improve the quality of the computer data for the next financial year. This feedback also allows Member States to adapt their computer systems before sending the computer files for the next financial year. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The Commission receives computer files each year from the Member States concerning details of all individual payments made to the beneficiaries pursuant to Commission Regulation (EC) No 2390/1999 (6). The detailed information is stored in the CATS (7) database.

6

7

CATS is a huge and very detailed database, containing over 137 million data records and around 4,09 billion related number of fields (8). Obviously it is not possible to check all these individual fields. In order to improve the data quality, the Commission has continuously refined the CATS database since its creation, as well as the corresponding Regulation. Data quality is a constant concern and, as a result of the yearly checks, the quality of the computer files is steadily improving.

8

As for the specific controls of the data from the financial year 2000 onwards the Commission examines four different quality aspects of the computer files received from the Member States pursuant to Commission Regulation (EC) No 2390/1999.

Each year, the Commission undertakes a reconciliation of the amounts declared from the Member States with the respective annual declarations. Possible differences need to be justified.

The second aspect is the respect of code lists. Commission Regulation (EC) No 2390/1999 requires standard codes for a certain number of fields. From the financial year 2002 onwards, compliance with the code lists is automatically checked during the transmission of the computer data to the Commission.

The third quality aspect includes the completeness of the data supplied by the Member States in respect of the budget posts. From the financial year 2002 onwards, some data elements are already checked during the transmission process.

The last item within the quality control is the respect of the deadline of 10 February for sending the computer data to the Commission.

Each year, the Commission communicates the conclusions and findings made in the quality checks to the Member States in order to improve the quality of the computer data for the next financial year. This feedback also allows Member States to adapt their computer systems before sending the computer files for the next financial year.

| 2. | CATS was created to assist the Commission in the context of the Clearance of Accounts procedure. CATS has been operational since the financial year 2000. The auditors of the Commission are using it to prepare and perform their European Agriculture Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF) Guarantee expenditure related audits. This database is thus primarily and above all an audit tool helping to carry out audits.
  According to Commission Regulation (EC) No 2390/1999 Member States make available to the Commission all the information by budget item in respect of each individual operation making up the payments by and the receipts of the EAGGF Guarantee Section. Firstly, the quality of the data depends on the information supplied once a year by the Member States which are the suppliers of this data. Secondly, the Commission undertakes specific quality controls, as mentioned under question 1., to improve steadily the data quality. Therefore, the Commission has a reliable tool to be used in their audits of the agricultural expenditure carried out in the Member States. That part of the data, which undergoes more in depth controls in the context of the audits and enquiries, is correlated by the findings made in the Member States. Despite the fact that it is not possible to check every element of each computer record, the data quality is in general adequate for the use in this Clearance of Accounts activity.
  As a result, since CATS has been created and designed as an audit tool, it is therefore only of limited use for providing statistical and analytical information. It is important to stress that parameters which are important for the controls prevail, and most importantly the expenditure is cross-checked and confirmed by the monthly declarations of the Member States. |
| --- | --- |

2.

CATS was created to assist the Commission in the context of the Clearance of Accounts procedure. CATS has been operational since the financial year 2000. The auditors of the Commission are using it to prepare and perform their European Agriculture Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF) Guarantee expenditure related audits. This database is thus primarily and above all an audit tool helping to carry out audits.

According to Commission Regulation (EC) No 2390/1999 Member States make available to the Commission all the information by budget item in respect of each individual operation making up the payments by and the receipts of the EAGGF Guarantee Section. Firstly, the quality of the data depends on the information supplied once a year by the Member States which are the suppliers of this data. Secondly, the Commission undertakes specific quality controls, as mentioned under question 1., to improve steadily the data quality. Therefore, the Commission has a reliable tool to be used in their audits of the agricultural expenditure carried out in the Member States. That part of the data, which undergoes more in depth controls in the context of the audits and enquiries, is correlated by the findings made in the Member States. Despite the fact that it is not possible to check every element of each computer record, the data quality is in general adequate for the use in this Clearance of Accounts activity.

As a result, since CATS has been created and designed as an audit tool, it is therefore only of limited use for providing statistical and analytical information. It is important to stress that parameters which are important for the controls prevail, and most importantly the expenditure is cross-checked and confirmed by the monthly declarations of the Member States.

| 3. | The previous general enquiries that were carried out by the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) in this matter were conducted on its behalf by the Italian authorities as detailed in the answer given to the Honourable Member's Written Question E-2299/02 (9).
  Currently, OLAF does not have any specific cases of investigation into the export of agricultural products to the states listed by the Honourable Member.
  As for the Court of Auditors, the question must be addressed directly to this institution. |
| --- | --- |

3.

The previous general enquiries that were carried out by the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) in this matter were conducted on its behalf by the Italian authorities as detailed in the answer given to the Honourable Member's Written Question E-2299/02 (9).

9

Currently, OLAF does not have any specific cases of investigation into the export of agricultural products to the states listed by the Honourable Member.

As for the Court of Auditors, the question must be addressed directly to this institution.

---

(1)  OJ C 137 E, 12.6.2003, p. 172.

1

(2)  OJ C 70 E, 20.3.2004, p. 45.

2

(3)  See page 223.

3

(4)  OJ C 70 E, 20.3.2004, p. 45.

4

(5)  Swiss Confederation, the Principality of Andorra, the Principality of Liechtenstein, the Republic of San Marino and the Vatican State City.

5

(6)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 2390/1999 of 25 October 1999 laying down detailed rules of the application of Regulation (EC) No 1663/95 as regards the form and content of the accounting information that the Member States must hold at the disposal of the Commission for the purposes of the clearance of the EAGGF Guarantee Section accounts, OJ L 295, 16.11.1999. Annexes I, II and III of this Regulation are updated annually.

6

(7)  ‘Clearance Audit Trail System’.

7

(8)  Each payment record can contain up to 128 different data fields.

8

(9)  OJ C 110 E, 8.5.2003.

9

---