# EUR-Lex - 52012DC0563 - EN

*|*

# 52012DC0563

**REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL Annual Report to the Discharge Authority on internal audits carried out in 2011 (Article 86(4) of the Financial Regulation) /* COM/2012/0563 final */**

			*

			*

REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE
EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL

Annual Report to the Discharge Authority
on internal audits carried out in 2011
(Article 86(4) of the Financial Regulation)

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1........... Introduction.................................................................................................................... 4

2........... The IAS’s Mission.......................................................................................................... 4

3........... Implementation of the IAS
coordinated audit plan............................................................ 5

3.1........ Audit statistics................................................................................................................ 5

3.2........ Main findings and
recommendations, their impact and subsequent management action....... 6

3.2.1..... Governance.................................................................................................................... 7

3.2.2..... Performance audits......................................................................................................... 8

3.2.3..... Control strategies............................................................................................................ 9

3.2.4..... The Global Navigation Satellite
Systems (GNSS) programmes...................................... 10

3.2.5..... Financial management processes................................................................................... 11

3.2.6..... Information Technologies.............................................................................................. 11

4........... Consultation with the Commission’s
Financial Irregularities Panel................................... 12

5........... Conclusions.................................................................................................................. 12

5.1........ Performance audits....................................................................................................... 12

5.2........ Commission
departments’ control strategies.................................................................. 12

5.3........ Commission’s management of major
industrial programmes........................................... 13

5.4........ Commission’s financial management
processes.............................................................. 13

5.5........ Commission’s IT governance........................................................................................ 13

1.           Introduction

This report is to the Discharge Authority on
the work carried out by the Commission’s Internal Audit Service (IAS), in
accordance with Article 86(4) of the Financial Regulation (FR). It is based on
the IAS report under Article 86(3) of the FR on key audit findings and on
significant risk exposure and control and corporate governance issues.

It is based on the audit and consulting
work done by the IAS in 2011[1]
in Commission Directorates-General and executive
agencies. It does not report on
audit work in decentralised European Agencies, the European External Action
Service, or other agencies or bodies audited by the IAS, for which separate
annual reports are drawn up.

The Commission’s
reactions to the findings and conclusions of the Internal Auditor were covered
in the synthesis report[2],
in which the Commission states its views on the cross-cutting issues raised by the
IAS, the European Court of Auditors (ECA) and the Discharge Authority, and
those identified by the Audit Progress Committee (APC).

In 2011 the IAS celebrated its tenth anniversary.
The annual conference was an occasion to recall the
achievements of the Commission’s administrative reform efforts, of which the
creation of the IAS and of the departmental IACs was a determining component.
One of its conclusions was that the Commission’s internal audit community[3] is not only one of the largest
public internal audit functions, but has also acquired one of the highest
degrees of maturity.

According to
the IAS stakeholder survey results, 87 % of participants are confident
that the service delivers and communicates a strong vision in terms of
governance and internal control; 87 % are also convinced that the recommendations
issued by the IAS lead to better risk control in the Commission and the Executive
Agencies.

2.           The
IAS’s Mission

The IAS audits
management and control systems within the Commission and the EU agencies and
provides independent and objective assurance on their adequacy and
effectiveness. At the request of management, it can also take on consulting work.

The IAS is under the authority of the Member of the Commission
responsible for Audit and is accountable to the APC. Its independence is
guaranteed in its Mission Charter, adopted by the Commission.

The mission charter
stipulates that the IAS carries out its duties in accordance with the Financial
Regulation and the International Standards for the Professional Practice of
Internal Auditing and the Code of Ethics of the Institute of Internal Auditors
(IIA).

Overall opinion on the Commission’s
financial management

As required by its charter, the IAS issued,
in 2011, an overall opinion on the state of financial management in the
Commission in the previous year. It is a positive assurance statement. It is
based on the work carried out by the IAS and IACs during the previous three-year
period and provides reassurance to the Commission (the ‘College’) that the
statements of assurance issued by the Directors-General are, seen as a whole,
soundly based, and that there are no significant weaknesses other than those
mentioned in the report made by the IAS under Article 86(3) of the FR.

IAS contribution to a more positive
Statement of Assurance (‘DAS’)

The DAS represents the opinion of the
European Court of Auditors (ECA) on the reliability of the EU accounts and on
the legality and regularity of the underlying transactions. Although the
accounts were found to be reliable in recent years, the ECA has issued an
adverse opinion for some fields of activity. Most errors occur outside the
Commission and are found in particular in the structural funds, which have
shared management, and in rural development (shared management), research
(direct management) and external aid (decentralised management). Serious
breaches of EU and national procurement rules accounted for much of the error
found in the ‘Cohesion’ area.

The IAS audit plan has therefore
prioritised audits to ensure that a consistent control strategy is being applied
for every significant area of expenditure, including the Structural Funds DGs,
as such control strategies aim at addressing the risk of error in the
underlying transactions.

3.           Implementation
of the IAS coordinated audit plan

3.1.        Audit
statistics

In 2011, the
IAS implemented 88 % of
its priority engagements (C1 engagements being those due to be completed in the
year). Other engagements were well advanced, to the tune of 69 % of
non-priority audit engagements (C2 engagements being those that may be
completed in the following year due to scheduling considerations). 29 C1 and 36
C2 engagements (including audits, follow-ups and consultancy) were finalised,
resulting in 77 reports as follows:

Type || || Total 2011 || Total 2010 || Total 2009

AUDIT || No of engagements || 20 || 24 || 26

No of reports || 23 || 28 || 31

PRELIMINARY REVIEWS || No of engagements || 3 || 0 || 0

No of reports || 3 || 0 || 0

CONSULTING || No of engagements || 1 || 6 || 5

No of reports[4] || 1 || 6 || 5

FOLLOW-UP || No of engagements || 41 || 44 || 31

No of reports || 50 || 50 || 34

Total No of engagements || 65 || 74 || 62

Total No of reports || || 77 || 84 || 70

The IAS issued the following number of
recommendations:

|| Acceptance status || Yes || No

Priority || No || No || % || No || %

Critical || 0 || 0 || 100 % || 0 || 0 %

Very important || 57 || 56 || 98 % || 1 || 2 %

Important || 102 || 101 || 99 % || 1 || 1 %

Desirable || 1 || 1 || 100 % || 0 || 0 %

Total || 160 || 158 || 99 % || 2 || 1 %

A complete list of the audit reports is in
the attached Commission Working Document, together with the summaries, the
rates of acceptance of the recommendations per report, the state of
implementation of recommendations issued for 2007-2011 and the summaries of
final conclusions of follow-up engagements.

For all accepted recommendations, audited
services drafted action plans, which were submitted to and agreed with the IAS.
Audited services reported that 80 % of all recommendations accepted in
2007-2011 had been implemented by the beginning of 2012. Only 25[5] recommendations were more than
six months overdue.

The total number of recommendations
accepted by the audited services in 2007-2011, for which the IAS had conducted
follow-up audits by the end of 2011, is 1 097. The IAS agreed that the
recommendations had been implemented and closed 98 % of the
recommendations followed-up during this period.

The IAS follow-up
work confirmed that recommendations are being implemented satisfactorily. The
APC was informed of any critical or very important recommendations which were significantly
overrunning.

3.2.        Main findings and recommendations, their impact and subsequent
management action

A summary of the objectives and scope of
the audit engagements referred to below is in the attached Commission Staff Working
Document, together with the number of recommendations issued and accepted.

3.2.1.     Governance

In 2011, the IAS undertook a number of
audits and follow-up action on governance within the European Commission (EC).

· Fraud

The IAS maintained its commitment to fraud
prevention and detection and in 2011 carried out an audit in DG AGRI. Fraud
prevention and detection was part of the scope[6]
of two other audits on control strategies in DG INFSO and in DG RTD. In
addition, one follow-up audit was carried out in 2011 on anti-fraud information
systems in DG OLAF.

The audit in DG AGRI focused on assessing the adequacy and effective
application of the governance, risk management and internal control process for
prevention, detection and follow-up of fraud cases.

The IAS recommended clearly assigning anti-fraud
roles and responsibilities, raising fraud risk awareness in vulnerable areas,
developing an anti-fraud strategy, strengthening anti-fraud controls at Member
State level for shared management, improving the follow-up of and reporting on
identified fraud cases and working towards better cooperation with OLAF. According
to the action plan, AGRI will, during 2012, appoint a full-time anti-fraud
correspondent, approve its anti-fraud strategy in line with the Commission’s
and establish working arrangements with OLAF.

As regards
INFSO and RTD, the IAS found that DG INFSO in particular had developed
ground-breaking anti-fraud initiatives and that these should be built upon to
help develop a common fraud strategy for the research area as a whole. For RTD,
the IAS found that certain areas still needed to be addressed, including
awareness raising, identifying ‘red-flags’, making sure that anti-fraud checks
are embedded in control systems, working with other DGs on specific risks such
as plagiarism and double funding, ensuring proper data capture and making use
of advanced data search tools. The RTD anti-fraud strategy has meanwhile been
revised to ensure common elements are properly dealt with; training courses in
fraud awareness have been organised; the regular risk assessment includes a
consideration of fraud risks (essentially double financing); and the IT tool
developed by INFSO to detect cases of plagiarism will be considered once the
field tests have been completed.

· Business Continuity Management

In 2011, the IAS conducted an in-depth
follow-up audit of its 2009 audit on Business Continuity Management (BCM) in
the Secretariat General (in its coordination role) and in the operational DGs
JLS[7], TAXUD and HR It was unable to
give an opinion after its 2009 audit. During this follow-up exercise the IAS
not only evaluated the progress made by each of the audited services in
implementing their respective action plans, but also re-assessed the adequacy
of controls as a whole. As a result, a qualified audit opinion was expressed,
giving reasonable assurance regarding the achievement of the business
objectives, except for one issue relating to BCM supervision. The Commission is
evaluating the most appropriate and effective measures of resolving that issue.

3.2.2.     Performance
audits

In its resolution of 10 May 2011 on the discharge for
2009, the European Parliament invited ‘the Internal Audit Service to allocate part of its resources to an examination of whether the
spending by the main DGs is efficient, economical and effective and thereby
completing the current financial and compliance audits’(§59).

Consequently, the IAS included a number of
performance audits in its 2010-2012 strategic audit plan. In 2011 it delivered
its first performance audits on the Entrepreneurship and Innovation Programme
(EIP) in DG ENTR and on the operational activities of DG ECHO.

The EIP audit highlighted the need for DG
ENTR to develop a reduced set of meaningful and stable indicators for similar
action under the EIP successor programme, to improve performance measurement in
evaluations and to improve its guidance on performance aspects to the Executive
Agency for Competitiveness and Innovation, to which more projects could be
outsourced. The Commission’s proposal for the Programme for Competitiveness of
Enterprises and SMES (COSME) under the next Multi-annual Financial Framework
2014-2020 pays due heed to the audit results.

The audit on ECHO’s operational activities
concluded that while the DG reacts quickly to an event, weaknesses were noted
in moving from relief efforts to development assistance and in the
mainstreaming of Disaster Risk Reduction and disaster preparedness in projects.
According to the action plan, a final methodology and an
appropriate set of tools for mainstreaming DRR into its emergency response procedure
will be available by the end of 2012.

The IAS also recommended that DGs ECHO and
DEVCO prepare a common strategy on LRRD (Link between Relief Rehabilitation and
Development) and that the LRRD issue be properly addressed in the update of the
legal instruments, in particular the European Development Fund and Development
Cooperation Instrument. The interinstitutional discussions on the Commission
proposals for the new legal instruments under the new MFF are taking place, and
the ECHO/DEVCO/EEAS common strategy on LRRD is being formulated, aimed at improving the aid effectiveness of both humanitarian and development
aid by means of better coordination, avoiding duplication and enhancing
synergies. The common methodology is expected to be
adopted by the end of 2012.

In 2011 the IAS carried out an audit on the
effectiveness and efficiency of the monitoring by DG MARKT of the application
of public procurement rules in the Member States. The audit concluded that the
DG should take a more proactive, preventive approach, in partnership with the
Member States. In particular, the collection, analysis and reporting of
information should be enhanced and enforcement action better prioritised and
targeted, based on ECA, OLAF and ex-post control work. DG MARKT should take the
lead in exchanging information, experiences and best practices, and
benchmarking the national procurement systems.

The Commission took the IAS audit
recommendations into consideration in its proposals for revised public procurement
legislation, in particular regarding the requirements for Member States to
submit annual reports and to establish specialised bodies at national level,
responsible for general coordination and supervision.

3.2.3.     Control
strategies

Following its
audits on the structural funds in 2010, the IAS examined control strategies in
2011 in the research field (DGs RTD and INFSO), in external aid (DG DEVCO), in
pre-accession programmes (IPARD) and in the TEN-T programme.

Regarding the audits in DGs RTD and INFSO, one
of the major achievements was the introduction, as of
2012, of a Common Representative Audit Sample (CRAS) across the whole research
policy domain. This will address inefficiencies and reduce the audit burden and coordination problems of having the same beneficiaries tested by
up to eight different Research Commission Services (RCS). To preserve
accountability and assurance needs, each service’s share of the single sample may
be increased as necessary, and they should continue to draw their own specific
risk-based samples.

In the area of external aid, the IAS
recommended that DG DEVCO strengthen its supervision
and controls over both decentralised and centralised calls for proposals, and
more specifically put in place or strengthen its monitoring mechanisms and
controls, in order to obtain assurance on the effectiveness and transparency of
the grant award process, and its compliance with the established rules. Other
IAS recommendations covered staff training needs, enhanced data inputting
controls in CRIS through improved training, and a more rigorous data review
process covering both DEVCO HQ and EU Delegations. DG DEVCO strengthened its
supervision and controls over calls for proposals by strengthening the PRAG (Practical
Guide to Contract procedures for EU External Actions) instructions, revising
current guidelines and making a steady effort on the training front. A study on data quality is being launched with a view to classifying
the various errors, identifying the main reasons for erroneous encoding and
proposing corrective and preventive measures. A comprehensive action plan to
improve data quality in CRIS will be established as part of the specific audit
on CRIS conducted by the ECA.

The audit on the Instrument for
Pre-Accession Assistance for Rural Development (IPARD), managed by DG AGRI,
highlighted the delays in implementing the IPARD programmes, resulting in poor
financial execution and a possible budget loss under the n+3 de-commitment
rule. The IAS recommended that DG AGRI do more to establish the steps and
timeline of the pre-accreditation process up to the conferral decision, and
give better guidance and communication to candidate countries and their
pre-accreditation bodies. DG AGRI was of the view that conferring the
management of the IPARD programme to Croatia was the best way to prepare Croatia
for running the Rural Development Funds (which was corroborated by the ECA), but
will improve guidance, revise the conferral process, and provide regular
evaluation of bottlenecks up to the end of 2012.

The
Trans-European Transport Network Executive Agency was created in 2006 to manage
the technical and financial implementation of the TEN-T programme (EUR 1.2
billion committed in 2011). The audit on control strategy in TEN-T EA concluded
with a satisfactory audit opinion, confirming that executive agencies can
constitute a workable and effective management model for further development in
the next multi-annual financial framework.

3.2.4.     The
Global Navigation Satellite Systems (GNSS) programmes

The Commission
is increasingly becoming involved in the management and delivery of major
industrial programmes like ITER, Galileo or EU-wide IT systems which pose
particular challenges and risks.

To support
Commission management activities in this area, the IAS completed a series of
three audits in 2011 of the Global Navigation Satellite System (GNSS)
programmes EGNOS and Galileo. In the wake of significant delays, additional costs
and the withdrawal of private investors, these programmes were reorganised in
2007-2008 with a revised plan, a new funding scheme and a new governance model
involving, notably, the Commission as Programme Manager, the European Space
Agency (ESA) as Project Manager and the Member States represented through
different bodies. The Commission proposed to earmark EUR 7 billion to guarantee
the completion of the EU satellite navigation infrastructure and to run the
systems until 2020.

The first IAS
engagement on Governance, Risk Management and Project Management
concluded with an adverse audit opinion, recommending more stability in these
space programmes and in their governance structure. Other recommendations were
that: leadership of the Commission Programme Manager be strengthened; the
Commission and the ESA focus more on their respective roles; the role of the
GNSS Agency be clarified and stabilised; and the human resources strategy be
improved in relation to temporary staff to ensure continuity of personnel.

The second IAS
engagement on Actions, Grants and Procurement Management resulted in a
qualified opinion. The IAS recommended that a new review of the ESA’s internal
control system be organised in line with the Financial Regulation requirements
for indirect centralised management. The conditions for allowing open
competitive tenders should also be strengthened, and the use of negotiated
procedures should be limited to exceptional cases. Finally, the IAS recommended
tightening up ESA’s reporting requirements to create a better link between payments
and deliverables, with a view to better planning, supervision and monitoring of
ESA. DG ENTR undertook to re-perform (outsource) the six-pillar assessment of
ESA’s systems and procedures.

The third
engagement on Accounting for Fixed Assets, Financial Circuits and Financial
Management concluded with an adverse audit opinion on the completeness and
valuation of fixed assets. The IAS recommended that DG ENTR strengthen its
supervision of fixed assets management and develop an appropriate accounting
strategy. DG ENTR should work with DG BUDG and the Accounting Officer to
determine an appropriate valuation and accounting methodologies for the
different fixed asset streams. In addition to this new assessment of the ESA’s
internal control system, DG ENTR’s ex post audits should take all available
information into account, notably the qualifications expressed by the ESA’s
Board of Auditors on the Agency’s annual accounts.

The Commission immediately took action to
address the above issues. A new Deputy Director-General was assigned to oversee
the whole programme. Measures were adopted to improve the administrative
processes. External consultants have been recruited to assist in the valuation
and accounting. In October 2011, the first two operational satellites were
successfully launched. The Commission adopted, in November, a proposal for a
new Regulation on the implementation and exploitation of European Satellite
Navigation Systems.

3.2.5.     Financial
management processes

In 2011 the IAS concentrated mainly on two
processes at Commission level (management of guarantees and recoveries) and on
the management of procurements in three operational services (OIB, DG HR and
JRC). In addition, the series of GNSS programme audits also covered some
financial activities, notably grants and procurement management, financial circuits
and financial management (see para 3.2.4 for more details). The multi-DG audit
performed in 2011 identified areas for improvement in the management of financial
guarantees.

The follow-up on recovery procedures showed
adequate implementation of the recommendations, contributing to more stringent
processes in the audited DGs. The 2011 follow-up audits on procurement
procedures showed that the systems and procedures in the audited services had
been significantly improved.

Overall, the IAS conclusions on financial
management processes in the Commission are positive.

3.2.6.     Information
Technologies

Information technologies (IT) are having
more and more of an impact on the Commission’s operations, and more money and
staff are being devoted to IT activities (EUR 500 million spent each year and 3 800
staff working in IT).

Following IAS recommendations, the
Commission launched various initiatives in 2010 to ensure that it is getting
the most of its investments in IT in terms of expenditure and service efficiency,
including the setting up of an IT steering committee.

The Commission’s attention is now focused
on devising a comprehensive IT strategy and a more strategic approach to IT
investments, by monitoring more closely its IT expenditures to ensure they are
aligned with core business operations, and to identify efficiency-boosting synergies.

The audits conducted in 2011[8] focused on IT governance, IT
project management and IT security. Particular attention was given to the
management of sub-contracted activities, where outsourced services might
exacerbate the inherent risks of failure to meet business needs, budget overrun
and breaches in the security of the systems.

The results demonstrated the need to
strengthen governance and IT risk management in administrative departments and for
IT projects. In particular, the role of senior management in overseeing IT
investments should be enhanced. Other areas for improvement relate to IT
security.

4.           Consultation
with the Commission’s Financial Irregularities Panel

No systemic problems were reported in 2011
by the Financial Irregularities Panel under Article 66(4) of the Financial
Regulation applicable to the general budget of the European Communities.

5.           Conclusions

The Commission expresses its appreciation both
to the Internal Auditor and to the audited DGs and Services for their positive
cooperation and for their action plans in response to the IAS’s
recommendations. By implementing the action plans for this year and for previous
years, the Commission is steadily building up its internal control framework.

On the basis of the work carried out in
2011, the following conclusions can be drawn:

5.1.        Performance
audits

The IAS’s first two performance audits sought
to make processes more effective and efficient rather than to test their
compliance with procedures and rules. This type of audit is particularly
relevant at this present time: there are mature internal control systems to address
the compliance issue, but the Commission must strive to do more with fewer
resources, and to demonstrate increased efficiency, given the current economic
climate. The IAS also made major efforts to define the performance audit
framework and to develop an in-house training programme for auditors.

These first performance audits produced positive
results, but highlighted the need for

·
better links between the activities of DGs,

·
more relevant performance indicators for certain
programmes,

·
better performance measurement in evaluations.

In the 2014-2020 Multiannual Financial
Framework, the Commission proposed radical simplifications and included in all
sectoral programmes general and specific objectives and key performance
indicators with a view to improved performance reporting. Moreover, a standard
clause on evaluation requires a final evaluation report on whether each programme’s
objectives have been achieved.

5.2.        Commission
departments’ control strategies

The IAS continued to work towards helping
the Commission to achieve a more positive DAS by taking an effective but
proportionate approach to the risk of error in the underlying transactions.

With a view to strengthening the controls
on the way EU research policy is run, the 2011 IAS audit in two Commission research-related
departments underlined the need for a common audit strategy in the Research
Area, with no fewer than eight Commission departments. The interconnected
nature of research means that there are bound to be common beneficiaries, requiring
a more coordinated audit approach.

In the External Aid area the IAS
recommended stronger supervision and controls in the EDF grant management
process, both at Commission headquarters and in the EU Delegations. The action
plans were designed to improve supervision of devolved expenditure, notably by
improving the Delegations’ reporting, rationalising the control programmes and
monitoring control activities. The measures were considered adequate but have
yet to bear fruit. The separation of tasks between the Commission and the EEAS
presents new risks, which are being addressed.

The IAS audited the control strategies of
the Structural Funds DGs in 2010, concluding that they are on the right track.
This work will be continued in 2012 in the Cohesion area, by way of audits
covering the closure of the previous programming period
for the ERDF, CF and ESF and the implementation of controls over the 2007-13
programming period, to seek reasonable assurance that DGs are effectively
addressing the issue of the persistently high rate of error.

5.3.        Commission’s
management of major industrial programmes

Following its audits on the Global Navigation Satellite Systems (GNSS) Programmes, the IAS concluded that the Commission should
ensure it has the capacity to run such complex programmes, as they require
large-project management skills which are not readily found internally. They
also require management responsibility to be assigned at an appropriately high
level and a stable governance structure.

The Commission took immediate action to
address the above issues and adopted a proposal for a new Regulation on the
implementation and exploitation of European Satellite Navigation Systems. This
provides a new framework for the financing and governance of the EGNOS and
Galileo programmes for 2014-2020.

5.4.        Commission’s
financial management processes

The follow-up audits on financial
management processes have shown much improvement over recent years, so the IAS’s
conclusions in this area are positive. Work is still needed to ensure that the
control framework remains robust despite pressure on resources.

5.5.        Commission’s
IT governance

Following the IAS’s recommendations in the
IT area, the Commission has taken a number of initiatives, such as establishing
ABM and IT Steering Committees, the High Level Group on IT, the IS Project
Management Board and the Special IT Working Group on office automation, all of which
have improved IT governance. In 2010/2011, the IT rationalisation process was
initiated[9].
To this end, many Commission IT systems were reviewed and assessed in 2011,
with a view to limiting the number of local IT systems and IT staff and to
streamlining existing systems. This work is ongoing. It is essential that any
rationalisation decisions be based on a thorough and objective analysis of the
costs and benefits of each option under consideration.

[1]               The
audit and consulting reports finalised by 1 February 2011 and the management
letter on the split of DGs finalised in March 2011 were included in the 2010
report and are therefore not reported on here. Reports issued in 2011 but
finalised by 31 January 2012 are, by the same token, included in the 2011
report.

[2]               COM(2011) 0281 of 6 June 2012.

[3]               IAS
and Internal Audit Capabilities (IACs).

[4]               Including Management Letters.

[5]               Of these 25 recommendations, one was issued in 2006
(see comments in the attached Commission Working Document).

[6]               More details in section 3.2.3.

[7]               In 2010 DG JLS was split into DG HOME and DG JUST.

[8]               Management of Local IT in DG EMPL, Security of IT
environment in subcontracted projects in DG REGIO, Management of the
telecommunication infrastructure and services sTESTA in DG DIGIT, IT tools of
the Enterprise Europe Network in EACI.

[9]               The Communication from Commissioner M.
Šefčovič to the Commission ‘Getting the best from IT in the
Commission’ of 7.10.2010 established the ABM and IT Steering Committees. The
Communication from Commissioner M. Šefčovič to the Commission ‘Follow
up to the Communication ‘Getting the best from IT in the Commission’ of
30.11.2011 proposed the Commission’s IT rationalisation process.