THE COURT'S STATEMENT OF ASSURANCE PROVIDED TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL

I. Pursuant to the provisions of Article 248 of the Treaty the Court has audited (a) the ‘Annual Accounts of the European Communities’ which comprise the ‘Consolidated financial statements’ (1) and the ‘Consolidated reports on implementation of the budget’ (2) for the financial year ended 31 December 2008; and (b) the legality and regularity of the transactions underlying those accounts.

Management's responsibility

II. In accordance with Articles 268 to 280 of the Treaty and the Financial Regulation, management ( 3 ) is responsible for the preparation and fair presentation of the ‘Annual Accounts of the European Communities’ and the legality and regularity of the transactions underlying them: (a) Management's responsibility in respect of the ‘Annual Accounts of the European Communities’ includes: designing, implementing and maintaining internal control relevant to the preparation and fair presentation of financial statements that are free from material misstatement, whether due to fraud or error; selecting and applying appropriate accounting policies, on the basis of the accounting rules adopted by the Commission's accounting officer (4) ; and making accounting estimates that are reasonable in the circumstances. According to Article 129 of the Financial Regulation, the Commission approves the ‘Annual Accounts of the European Communities’ after the Commission's accounting officer has consolidated them on the basis of the information presented by the other institutions (5) and bodies (6) and established a note, accompanying the consolidated accounts, declaring, inter alia, that he has reasonable assurance that they present a true and fair view of the financial position of the European Communities in all material aspects. (b) The way in which management exercises its responsibility for legality and regularity of underlying transactions depends on the method of implementation of the budget. In the case of direct centralised management, implementation tasks are performed by the Commission's departments. Under shared management, implementation tasks are delegated to Member States, under decentralised management to third countries and under indirect centralised management to other bodies. In the case of joint management, implementation tasks are shared between the Commission and international organisations (Article 53 to 57 of the Financial Regulation). Implementation tasks have to comply with the principle of sound financial management, requiring designing, implementing and maintaining effective and efficient internal control including adequate supervision and appropriate measures to prevent irregularities and fraud and, if necessary, legal proceedings to recover funds wrongly paid or used. Regardless of the method of implementation applied, the Commission bears the ultimate responsibility for the legality and regularity of the transactions underlying the accounts of the European Communities (Article 274 of the Treaty).

Auditor's responsibility

III. The Court's responsibility is to provide, on the basis of its audit, the European Parliament and the Council with a statement of assurance as to the reliability of the accounts and the legality and regularity of the underlying transactions. The Court conducted its audit in accordance with the IFAC International Standards on Auditing and Codes of Ethics and the INTOSAI International Standards of Supreme Audit Institutions, in so far as these are applicable in the European Community context. These standards require that the Court plans and performs the audit to obtain reasonable assurance whether the ‘Annual Accounts of the European Communities’ are free from material misstatement and the transactions underlying them are legal and regular.

IV. An audit involves performing procedures to obtain audit evidence about the amounts and disclosures in the consolidated accounts and the legality and the regularity of the transactions underlying them. The procedures selected depend on the auditor's judgement, including the assessment of the risks of material misstatement of the consolidated accounts and of material non-compliance of the underlying transactions with the requirements of the legal framework of the European Communities, whether due to fraud or error. In making those risk assessments, the auditor considers internal control relevant to the preparation and fair presentation of the consolidated accounts, and supervisory and control systems implemented to ensure legality and regularity of underlying transactions, in order to design audit procedures that are appropriate in the circumstances. An audit also includes evaluating the appropriateness of accounting policies used and reasonableness of accounting estimates made, as well as evaluating the overall presentation of the consolidated accounts and the annual activity reports.

V. In the context of ‘Revenue’, the Court’s audit of Value Added Tax (VAT)- and Gross National Income (GNI)-based own resources takes as its starting point the receipt by the Commission of the macroeconomic aggregates prepared by the Member States, and then assesses the Commission's systems for processing the data until they are included in the final accounts and the contributions by the Member States have been received. For traditional own resources, the Court examines the accounts of the customs authorities and analyses the flow of duties under custom surveillance until the amounts are recorded in the final accounts and received by the Commission.

VI. The Court considers that the audit evidence obtained is sufficient and appropriate to provide a basis for its statement of assurance.

Opinion on the reliability of the accounts

VII. In the Court's opinion, the ‘Annual Accounts of the European Communities’ present fairly, in all material respects, the financial position of the Communities as of 31 December 2008, and the results of their operations and cash flows for the year then ended, in accordance with the provisions of the Financial Regulation and the accounting rules adopted by the Commission's accounting officer.

VIII. Without calling into question the opinion expressed in paragraph VII, the Court notes that weaknesses in the accounting systems, which are partly due to the complex legal and financial framework, still put at risk the quality of financial information of certain Directorates-General of the Commission (in particular for pre-financing, the related cut-off and for invoices/cost claims) as well as for the fixed assets of the European Satellite Programme Galileo.

Opinion on the legality and regularity of the transactions underlying the accounts

IX. In the Court’s opinion, ‘Revenue’, commitments for all policy groups and payments underlying the accounts for the year ended 31 December 2008 for the policy groups ‘Education and Citizenship’ and ‘Administrative and other expenditure’ in all material respects are legal and regular.

X. In the Court’s opinion, (a) payments underlying the accounts for the year ended 31 December 2008 for the policy group ‘Agriculture and natural resources’, except for Rural Development, in all material respects are legal and regular. For this policy group, the integrated administrative and control system (IACS) generally continues to be effective. Issues need to be addressed in certain areas, in particular for Rural Development, for limiting the risk of irregular expenditure; and (b) payments underlying the accounts for the year ended 31 December 2008 for the policy group ‘Economic and financial affairs’, except for the Sixth Framework Programme for research and technological development (FP6) expenditure in this policy group, in all material respects are legal and regular. For this policy group, the supervisory and control systems in the policy area ‘Enterprise’, mostly due to weaknesses concerning FP6, are partially effective in preventing or detecting and correcting errors.

XI. In the Court’s opinion, payments underlying the accounts for the year ended 31 December 2008 for the policy groups ‘Cohesion’, ‘Research, energy and transport’ and ‘External aid, development and enlargement’ are materially affected by error, although to different levels. For the above policy groups, except ‘Cohesion’, supervisory and control systems are partially effective in preventing or detecting and correcting the reimbursement of overstated or ineligible costs. For the policy group ‘Cohesion’, Member States’ systems for correcting errors found by national controls are, in most cases, at least partially effective.

XII. The Court reiterates that complicated or unclear legal requirements (such as eligibility rules) have a significant impact on legality and regularity of transactions underlying the expenditure in the policy groups of ‘Agriculture and natural resources’, in particular Rural Development, ‘Cohesion’, ‘Research, energy and transport’ and ‘Economic and financial affairs’, in particular for FP6 spending.

XIII. The Court notes further progress in the Commission’s supervisory and control systems, in particular concerning the impact of the reservations on the assurance given in the declarations by the Directors-General; and a greater consistency of these declarations with the Court’s findings. However, the Court notes that the Commission is not yet able to demonstrate that its actions to improve supervisory and control systems have been effective in mitigating the risk of error in the policy groups and activities mentioned in paragraphs X and XI.

24 September 2009

Vítor Manuel da Silva Caldeira President

European Court of Auditors 12, rue Alcide De Gasperi, L-1615 Luxembourg

THE COURT'S OBSERVATIONS THE COMMISSION'S REPLIES

INFORMATION IN SUPPORT OF THE STATEMENT OF ASSURANCE

Introduction

1.1. Pursuant to Article 248 of the EC Treaty, the Court of Auditors provides the European Parliament and the Council with a Statement of Assurance concerning the reliability of the accounts and the legality and regularity of the underlying transactions (‘the DAS’). The Treaty also authorises the Court to supplement this statement with specific assessments of each major area of EU activity.

1.2. The aim of the work on the reliability of the accounts of the European Communities is to obtain sufficient appropriate evidence to conclude on the extent to which revenue, expenditure, assets and liabilities have been properly recorded and that the annual accounts provide a true and fair view of the financial position as of 31 December 2008, and the results of their operations and cash flows for the year then ended (see paragraphs 1.4 to 1.18).

1.3. The objective of the Court’s audit work on the regularity (7)of the transactions underlying the 2008 accounts is to gather sufficient appropriate evidence on which to base its opinion on whether they are in accordance with the applicable regulations or contractual provisions, and have been correctly calculated. See paragraphs 1.20 to 1.49 of this chapter for general issues and a summary of the results, and chapters 2 and 4 to 11 for details in the form of specific assessments.

Reliability of the accounts

General background

1.4. The Court's observations concern the annual accounts for the financial year 2008, drawn up by the Commission's Accounting Officer and approved by the Commission in compliance with Article 129 of the Financial Regulation of 25 June 2002 (8)and received by the Court on 29 July 2009 The accounts comprise the ‘consolidated financial statements’ - covering, in particular, the balance sheet setting out the assets and liabilities at the end of the year as well as the economic outturn account - and the ‘consolidated reports on the implementation of the budget’ - covering the revenue and expenditure for the year.

1.5. The Commission's Accounting Officer provided the Court with a representation letter confirming that the consolidated accounts are complete and reliable (see however paragraph 1.9) and that most of the Commission’s local systems have been validated (see however paragraph 1.10).

Audit scope and approach

1.6. In its audit of the 2008 accounts the Court concentrated on the following elements: — assessment of whether measures taken to remedy weaknesses identified in the accounting systems of certain Directorates-General (9)and decentralised bodies have contributed to improve the reliability of the accounts; — verification of the reliability of the 2008 accounts, in particular on elements to which the Court drew attention in its opinion on the 2007 accounts (10)(pre-financings, the related cut-off, invoices/cost claims and assets held by the European Space Agency in the context of the Galileo programme (11)).

Steps taken to strengthen the accruals based accounting system

1.7. The measures introduced by the Commission’s Accounting Officer in 2007 (12)to improve the accounting control environment at the level of individual Directorates-General also had an impact in 2008 and have contributed to a strengthening of the financial reporting framework and accounting systems. However, certain weaknesses still exist which need to be addressed so as to ensure the quality of accounting data (see paragraphs 1.10 and 1.11). 1.7. The Commission welcomes the Court’s acknowledgement of the progress made and accepts that some improvements are still necessary. Therefore, its accounting services will continue to address the issues raised and monitor the accounting work of the Directorates-General so as to improve the accuracy of the basic accounting data, for example through initiatives such as the ongoing accounting quality project.

1.8. Table 1.1 summarises and comments on the Commission’s response to the Court’s observations concerning the reliability of the 2007 accounts as well as the other points raised by the Court.

Limitation presented in the management representation letter concerning the consolidated accounts

1.9. The Commission’s Accounting Officer highlighted in his management representation letter that less than half of the institutions and agencies had provided information about the validation of their accounting systems in their own management representations.

Table 1.1 — Follow-up of the observations expressed in the Statement of Assurance concerning the financial year 2007 as to the reliability of the accounts and other observations made in the Annual Report concerning the financial year 2007 Observations in the Statement of Assurance concerning the financial year 2007 Commission’s replies in the Annual Report concerning the financial year 2007 Developments in 2008 Commission's replies Due in part to the complex legal and financial framework, and despite improvements made, weaknesses in the accounting systems still put at risk the quality of the financial information of certain Directorates-General of the Commission. This is in particular the case for pre-financings, the related cut-off, for invoices/cost statements and for assets held by the European Space Agency in the context of the Galileo programme. This led to a number of corrections after the presentation of the provisional accounts. The Commission's Accounting Officer considered the accounting data to be sufficiently accurate for the final accounts. For the assets held by the European Space Agency, there is some uncertainty and delay in the transfer to the European Communities. It is intended that the assets will be recognised once these transfer issues have been resolved. Weaknesses in the accounting systems of certain Directorates-General of the Commission still put at risk the quality of financial information, in particular for pre-financings, related cut-off and invoices/cost statements. Consequently, a limited number of corrections had to be made after the presentation of the provisional accounts. As for the assets held by the European Space Agency, the programme is still being considered in its research phase and therefore no assets are recognised so far. However, the Commission should obtain the necessary information in order to establish an inventory list, verify the recognition criteria and assess the valuation of assets. The accounting services will continue to address the issues raised and monitor the accounting work of the Directorates-General so as to improve the accuracy of the basic accounting data. The Commission is currently working together with the European Space Agency (ESA) to ensure that the relevant assets of the Galileo Programme will be transferred to the Commission and properly recorded in the accounts at the appropriate time. The transfer of the assets of the Galileo programme from ESA to the Commission is not foreseen to begin until the end of 2010 at the earliest. Other observations made in the context of the Annual Report concerning the financial year 2007 The Commission’s Accounting Officer was still not able to provide validation to two local systems nor to validate a third system without qualification. As in previous years, the horizontal issues and other matters outstanding were important. Work is still ongoing with the aim to reach validation for the two systems. The qualification for the third system has been removed in 2008. The Commission’s Accounting Officer was still not able to provide validation to one of the local systems nor to validate a second system subject to validation in 2008. Despite a considerable reduction in the number of open issues, the nature and importance of the remaining horizontal concerns still represent a risk for the reliability of the accounts. Errors have been identified in amounts registered in the accounting system as pre-financings and invoices/cost statements. Although the level of error in terms of financial impact as regards these items of the balance sheet was low, the frequency of these errors underlines the need for further improvement of the accuracy of the basic accounting data at the level of the operational Directorates-General. The Court found a low level of error in terms of financial impact as regards these items of the balance sheet. However, the frequency of these errors underlines again the need for further improvement of the accuracy of the basic accounting data at the level of the operational Directorates-General. The Commission accepts the point made by the Court and its accounting services will continue to address the issues raised and monitor the accounting work of the Directorates-General so as to improve the accuracy of the basic accounting data, for example through initiatives such as the ongoing accounting quality project. Despite the improvements noted, further measures are necessary in order to ensure completeness and reliability of the accounting data and information presented in the explanatory notes concerning the financial correction activities made by the Member States and deductions from subsequent payments. Under the action plans for Structural Funds, the Commission is making efforts to improve the reliability and completeness of the information received from Member states, by, amongst other things, carrying out on-the-spot audits in Member States. The accounting system has been adapted during 2008 so that all recoveries made by deduction from a subsequent payment can be identified and explained. Notwithstanding the Commission’s efforts, the notes to the financial statements do still not contain complete and reliable accounting data on the financial correction activities made by the Member States, in particular in the area of Structural Actions. The Commission is continuing its efforts to improve the reporting so that complete and reliable data may be reported by all Member States.

Validation of local financial management systems

1.10. Many Directorates-General use their own local IT-systems for financial management purposes and for the creation of transactions which are sent to the central accounting system (ABAC) via an interface. Most of these systems have been validated (13)by the Commission's Accounting Officer. However, in his recommendations, the Commission’s Accounting Officer identifies a number of open cross-cutting issues (14), the nature and importance of which means that they could still represent a risk to the reliability of the accounts (15). 1.10. The Accounting Officer’s services regularly follow-up with the Directorates-General in order to find solutions to identified problems. Thus in 2008 they were able to close half of the recommendations following the progress made by the services. The same follow-up continues in 2009 with the intention of closing more outstanding recommendations. This should help to improve the overall situation and thus reduce further the risk to the reliability of the accounts.

Strengthening of cut-off procedures

1.11. ‘Cut-off’ refers to the relevant procedures for deciding to which financial year a transaction should be attributed. Such procedures have to be applied by the Commission services for all accrued charges (more than 100 billion euro). In the ten Directorates-General which it has examined (16), representing more than 90 % of the accrued charges, the Court has noted continuous improvements over the last three years. However, it has to be noted that some services use the cut-off during the closure procedure to adjust erroneous accounts instead of correcting the related individual error prone accounting entries (e.g. booking of wrong amounts, double or omitted bookings). This may lead to inaccuracies in the accounting data during the year (see paragraphs 1.13 to 1.15). 1.11. The Commission accepts the point made by the Court and its accounting services will continue to address the issues raised and monitor the accounting work of the Directorates-General so as to improve the accuracy of the basic accounting data, for example through initiatives such as the ongoing accounting quality project.

Consolidated financial statements as at 31 December 2008

1.12. The Court's audit of the consolidated financial statements found them to be free of material misstatement. However, a number of issues were identified concerning particular elements which require further attention, as presented below.

Consolidated balance sheet as at 31 December 2008

Pre-financings

1.13. The Court’s audit of a representative statistical sample of 80 pre-financings registered in the accounting system identified a low level of error in terms of financial impact as regards this item of the balance sheet. However, the frequency of these findings underlines the need for further improvement of the accuracy of the basic accounting data at the level of the operational Directorates-General. The most common types of errors are: — missing or double entries or wrong amounts, which are generally corrected by cut-off adjustments; — booking transactions on the wrong General Ledger account. 1.13. The Commission accepts the points made by the Court and its accounting services will continue to address the issues raised and monitor the accounting work of the Directorates-General so as to improve the accuracy of the basic accounting data, for example through initiatives such as the ongoing accounting quality project.

1.14. Furthermore, additional audit work on the identification and validation of pre-financings revealed problems of completeness/accuracy for the balance sheet: — the clearing of outstanding pre-financings is not always carried out correctly. A number of clearings were not carried out at all or booked for incorrect amounts; — Directorates-General apply different methods to clear pre-financings. Whilst most Directorates-General clear a pre-financing when receiving the related cost claims or invoices and after having verified the eligibility, other Directorates-General wait until the end of a programme or even until the final audit report is received (17). The different and inappropriate clearing of the pre-financings lead to less accurate results for the cut-off calculation at year-end.

Accounts payable

1.15. The audit of a representative statistical sample of 80 invoices/cost statements from the population of accounts payable registered in the accounting system identified a low level of error in terms of financial impact as regards this balance sheet item. However, the frequency of accounting errors underlines the need for further improvement of the reliability of the basic accounting data at the level of the operational Directorates-General. Most of the errors concern the booking of invoices when received (prior to the eligibility checks) for incorrect amounts and the correction of wrong entries through cut-off adjustments. 1.15. The Commission accepts the points made by the Court and its accounting services will continue to address the issues raised and monitor the accounting work of the Directorates-General so as to improve the accuracy of the basic accounting data, for example through initiatives such as the ongoing accounting quality project.

Other issues

Recovery of undue payments

1.16. Following a recommendation of the Court, more information concerning the recovery of undue payments has been presented in the notes to the financial statements. The Court’s audit shows that the Commission is reporting reliable figures on financial corrections as far as they result from its own audit activities. However, Member States often do not provide the Commission with complete and reliable information on the financial corrections they are carrying out themselves (see paragraph 6.30). As a result of the high proportion of ineligible expenditure repeatedly indicated in the Courts Annual Reports, the Court considers that, in the area of Structural Actions, complete and reliable accounting data on these correction mechanisms at the Member State level should be presented in the notes to the consolidated accounts. 1.16. Concerning the information on financial corrections made by the Member States themselves, the Commission has made substantial efforts, under the Action Plan towards an integrated internal control framework to strengthen the Commission’s supervisory role in structural actions, to improve the quality of data provided by Member States and it is continuing its efforts to improve the reporting so that complete and reliable data may be reported by all Member States. See also Commission’s reply to paragraph 6.30.

1.17. Based on the examination of the certifying bodies work and the Commission’s analysis referring to this, the Court reiterates its doubt as regards the reliability of the receivables from Member States in the area of agriculture (EAGF debtors’ accounts) (18). The Commission underlined shortcomings with respect to the debtors’ accounts for one quarter of the paying agencies (19)and has proposed financial corrections (20)amounting to some 25,3 million euro. These corrections represent some 1,95 % of the 1 295 million euro that are to be recovered as at the end of financial year 2008. Whilst just below the 2 % level of materiality, they indicate that a risk of a material error at the overall level of the EAGF debtors’ accounts exists (see paragraph 5.56). 1.17. The Commission obtained enough information on debtors for clearance and accounting purposes. In no case was the financial impact found to be material at the overall account level (and thus as regards the Decision). The corrections of 25,3 million euro were proposed by the Commission based on its assessment of the information provided by the certification bodies in their reports, and its calculation of the most likely rates (and amounts) of error relating to debts in particular paying agencies. The same logic is used for debts as for the treatment (and possible correction) of errors arising from the detailed testing of Funds expenditure. The financial errors found are recovered through the ordinary clearance of accounts procedure.

Loans and borrowings

1.18. In respect of Macro-economic financial assistance, Balance of Payments and Euratom loans, the Communities borrow funds on the capital markets and make them available ‘back-to-back’ to the intended beneficiaries. International accounting standards and EC accounting rule 11 require the differences between the offered and the market interest rates to be reflected in the accounts. However, this has not been shown. The reasons and the effects of this departure from the standards are not sufficiently disclosed in the explanatory notes to the Communities financial statements. 1.18. Following the Council regulations concerning macroeconomic financial assistance, balance of payments and Euratom loans, the Communities lend money borrowed on the capital market at the same interest rate to Member States and third beneficiaries. The purpose of the operations is to allow the beneficiaries to benefit from the EC’s creditworthiness. Consequently the market rate is not relevant for these back-to-back transactions and the effective interest rate method as foreseen in EC accounting rule 11 is not applicable. The current accounting treatment reflects better the specific nature and the substance of the loans and borrowing transactions (substance over form principle). As suggested by the Court, the Commission will disclose more explicit information in the notes to the EC annual accounts and will consider clarifying the accounting rule 11 to better reflect the specificities of these transactions.

Conclusion

1.19. The Court concludes that the observations made do not have a material impact on the reliability of the accounts.

Regularity of the transactions underlying the accounts

Structure of the DAS specific assessments

1.20. The Court provides specific assessments within chapters 5 to 11 on groups of Activity Based Budgeting (ABB) policy areas (see Table 1.2 ). Chapter 4 covers revenue. Each specific assessment provides an introduction to the policy group, findings and conclusions on the regularity of transactions and the effectiveness of systems, and a follow-up of previous observations.

Explaining the DAS approach and results

1.21. The approach taken by the Court to audit the regularity of the transactions underlying the accounts comprises two main pillars: direct testing of transactions in order to ascertain how far they are regular; and an assessment of the effectiveness of supervisory and controls system in ensuring regularity. This is supplemented by evidence received from the relevant work of other auditors (where available) and analysis of management representations (21).

How the Court tests transactions

1.22. Transaction testing is based on a representative statistical sample of receipts or payments taken from the population as a whole, normally the group of policy areas. This testing provides a statistical estimation of the extent to which the transactions in the population concerned are regular.

1.23. In order to determine the sample sizes the Court uses an audit assurance model. This involves an assessment of the inherent risk that errors occur in transactions and the risk that the supervisory and control systems do not prevent or detect and correct such errors (control risk). In most cases, the Court must rely primarily on its direct testing as the systems do not provide adequate assurance about the regularity of transactions.

1.24. Testing involves the detailed examination of the transactions selected to check if the claim or payment was correctly calculated and in compliance with the relevant rules and regulations governing the spending. When the transaction is incorrectly calculated, or does not meet a regulatory requirement or contractual provisions, it is considered to contain an error. Via its sample of accounting transactions recorded in the budgetary accounts, the Court traces the payment down to the level of the final recipient (e.g. farmer, organiser of training course, development aid project promoter) and tests compliance with the relevant conditions at each level, where appropriate.

Table 1.2 — Expenditure outturn in 2008 by Annual Report chapters (million euro) Sections (S) and titles (T) (34) corresponding to the 2008 budgetary nomenclature allocated per chapter of the Court's Annual report Payments made in 2008 (35) Annual Report chapters Revenue 53,7 (36) Taxation and customs union (T.14) Agriculture and natural resources 55 114,9 Agriculture and rural development (T.05) Environment (T.07) Fisheries and maritime affairs (T.11) Health and consumer protection (T.17) Cohesion 36 596,9 Employment and social affairs (T.04) Regional policy (T.13) Research, energy and transport 7 516,7 Research (T.08) Energy and transport (T.06) Information society and media (T.09) Direct research (T.10) External aid, development and enlargement 6 323,1 External relations (T.19) Development and relations with ACP States (T.21) Enlargement (T.22) Humanitarian aid (T.23) Education and citizenship 1 734,9 Education and culture (T.15) Communication (T.16) Area of freedom, security and justice (T.18) Economic and financial affairs 621,4 Economic and financial affairs (T.01) Enterprise (T.02) Competition (T.03) Internal market (T.12) Trade (T.20) Administrative and other expenditure 8 582,9 Parliament (S. I) Council (S. II) Commission (S. III) Court of Justice (S. IV) Court of Auditors (S. V) Economic and Social Committee (S. VI) Committee of the Regions (S. VII) European Ombudsman (S. VIII) European Data-protection Supervisor (S. IX) Grand totals 116 544,5

How the Court evaluates and presents the results of transaction testing

1.25. Errors in transactions occur for a variety of reasons and take a number of different forms depending on the nature of the breach and specific rule or contractual requirement broken. They may relate to a condition for payment or to another compliance issue.

1.26. The Court classifies errors in the following two ways: (a) Quantifiable or non-quantifiable, depending on whether it is possible to measure how much of the amount paid from the EU budget was incorrect; and (b) According to their nature, eligibility error (payment does not meet the eligibility rules), occurrence error (reimbursement of a cost which is not proven to have been incurred), accuracy error (payment incorrectly calculated or not proven as correct) or other compliance error (an error that does not call into question the eligibility of the payment).

1.27. The Court expresses the frequency by which errors occur by presenting the proportion of the sample affected by errors (both quantifiable and non-quantifiable). This indicates how widespread errors are likely to be within the policy group as a whole (see 1.3 of part 1 of Annexes 1 in the different chapters).

1.28. The Court estimates the financial impact of errors on the basis of an error rate. It is calculated from quantifiable errors only. The Court evaluates the estimated error rate against a materiality level of 2 % to determine - together with other evidence - if the payments of the expenditure area are free from material error (an ‘unqualified’ opinion), or affected by a material level of error (an ‘adverse’ opinion (22)). For the purpose of presenting the results the error rate is classified as falling into one of the following three ranges: (a) Below 2 %; (b) Between 2 % and 5 %; and (c) Above 5 %. This information is provided in part 1 of Annexes 1 of Chapters 4 to 11, and summarised in Table 1.3 .

How the Court assesses systems and reports the results

1.29. Supervisory and control systems are established by the Commission, (and Member and beneficiary States in the case of shared or decentralised management), to manage the risks to the budget, including the regularity of transactions. Assessing the effectiveness of systems in ensuring regularity is therefore a key audit procedure, and particularly useful for identifying recommendations for improvement.

1.30. Each policy group is governed by a multitude of individual systems, each of which takes a considerable time to test and assess. Each year the Court therefore normally selects a sample of systems to examine. The results of the systems assessments are presented in the form of a table called ‘Assessment of selected supervisory and control systems’ given in part 2 of Annexes 1 of chapters 4 to 11. Systems are classified as being ‘effective’ in mitigating the risk of error in transactions, ‘partially effective’ (when there are some weakness affecting operational effectiveness) or ‘not effective’ (when weaknesses are pervasive and thereby completely undermine operating effectiveness).

1.31. In addition, the Court provides an overall assessment of supervisory controls systems (also presented in part 2 of Annexes 1 of chapters 4 to 11) which take into account both the assessment of selected systems, as well as the results of transaction testing.

General overview of audit results 2008

1.32. For Revenue and in the policy group Administrative and other expenditure, the supervisory and control systems, taken as a whole, are effective (see paragraphs 4.29 to 4.30 and 11.20 to 11.21) and the Court estimates that the errors have a financial impact of less than 2 % of the total amounts (see Table 1.3 ). In addition, the Court's assessment of the declarations by Directors-General and authorising officers by delegation confirmed that no reservations had to be presented (see paragraphs 2.3 to 2.4 and 2.9 and Table 2.1 ).

Table 1.3 — Summary of 2008 DAS results on the legality and regularity of underlying transactions Specific assessments of the 2008 DAS Annual Report Paragraphs in Annual Report Functioning of supervisory and control systems Error range Revenue (39) 4.29-4.30 Agriculture and natural resources 5.62-5.67 (40) (41) Cohesion 6.35-6.36 (42) Research, energy and transport 7.40-7.41 External aid, development and enlargement 8.33-8.34 Education and citizenship 9.31-9.32 Economic and financial affairs 10.27-10.28 (43) (44) Administrative and other expenditure 11.20-11.21 The above table summarises the overall assessment of supervisory and control systems, as outlined in the relevant chapters, and gives the broad results of the Court's substantive testing. The table highlights the key elements but cannot present all of the relevant detail (in particular concerning weaknesses of supervisory and control systems and types of error) for which it is necessary to refer to the body of the report, within the context of the methodology underlying the Court's audit approach (see paragraphs 1.5 to 1.15). Legend: Functioning of supervisory and control systems Effective Partially effective () Not effective () Systems are classified as ‘partially effective’ where some control arrangements have been judged to work adequately whilst others have not. Consequently, taken as a whole, they might not succeed in restricting errors in the underlying transactions to an acceptable level.

Error range () Less than 2 % (below materiality threshold) Between 2 % and 5 % Greater than 5 % () The Court decided to present the error rates (see paragraph 1.28) in three intervals. These error ranges cannot be interpreted as a confidence interval (in a statistical sense).

Chart 1.1 — Year to year comparison (33)

1.33. For the policy group Agriculture and natural resources and for the policy group Education and Citizenship the Court estimates that the overall financial impact of errors is less than 2 % of the total expenditure for each respective policy group. However, the Court found that Rural development expenditure within policy group Agriculture and natural resources was affected by a level of error exceeding 2 % (see paragraph 5.62) and the Court’s testing suggests that the interim and final payments for policy group Education and Citizenship were affected by material error (see paragraph 9.31). For the policy group Economic and financial affairs the Court estimates the error rate to be slightly above 2 % of the total expenditure for this policy group. However, the Court found that payments made under the Sixth Framework programme for research and technological development account for a disproportionately large part of this overall error rate (see paragraphs 10.12 to 10.13). 1.33. The Commission welcomes the positive overall assessment of these policy groups. It shares the Court’s view that rural development expenditure is affected by a higher incidence of errors, but notes with satisfaction that the error rate is decreasing in this area. The Commission notes that for Education and Citizenship the Court has found quantifiable errors in 4 out of 21 interim and final payments examined. See also reply to paragraph 9.31. For the policy group Economic and financial affairs, as FP6 represents only 8 % of the payments, the Commission considers that the overall transaction error rate in this policy area, taken as a whole, is free of material error. As far as FP6 payments are concerned the findings and conclusions of the Court in this chapter are similar to those in Chapter 7. See also replies to paragraphs 10.12 and 10.13.

1.34. The Court concludes that the supervisory and control systems for the policy group Agriculture and natural resources are partially effective in ensuring the regularity of payments (see paragraph 5.63). Whereas the Court reiterates that IACS generally is an effective control system for limiting the risk of error or irregular expenditure (see paragraph 5.64), it has identified issues which need to be addressed in SPS and SAPS schemes (see paragraph 5.65) and in the area of Rural development (see paragraph 5.66). The Court concludes that the supervisory and control systems for the policy group Education and Citizenship are partially effective (see paragraph 9.32) (23). For the policy group Economic and financial affairs, the Court examined three supervisory and control systems. While two were assessed as effective, one was assessed as only partially effective (24)in ensuring the legality and regularity of payments (see paragraph 10.28). 1.34. Over the years, a trend shows that, in general, the supervisory and control systems have improved in Agriculture and natural resources and are now effective, although improvements are still needed in the area of rural development. The Commission considers that some of the issues the Court suggests to address with regard to the SPS and SAPS schemes would lead to the introduction of further complicated rules which would result in a highly complex control system whose implementation would be costly and contrary to the simplification efforts of the Commission. Moreover, it would effectively reintroduce a form of coupling aid payments to production (see Commission reply to paragraph 5.65(b)). In 2008, for the Directorate-General for Education and Culture, the supervisory and control system put in place for the 2007-2013 period provides for a sound framework. Significant progress was made in its implementation through the analysis of ex-post declarations of assurance and intensified monitoring visits and audits. As regards the policy group Economic and financial affairs, the Court’s findings and conclusions concerning FP6 are similar to those in Chapter 7 whilst the rest of the expenditure is free of material error. The Commission considers that the supervisory and control systems in place are cost-efficient, proportional and adequate as a whole (see replies to paragraphs 10.19 and 10.28).

1.35. In the policy groups Cohesion (25), Research, energy and transport, External aid, development and enlargement and Economic and financial affairs, the Court concludes that the supervisory and control systems are partially effective, (see paragraphs 6.21, 6.23, 6.36, 7.41, 8.34 and 10.28 and Table 1.3 ). While for the policy groups Research, energy and transport, External aid, development and enlargement and Economic and financial affairs the Court’s estimated error rate is between 2 % - 5 % of the total expenditure, for the policy group Cohesion, the estimated error rate is above 5 % (see paragraphs 6.17, 6.35, 7.40 and 8.33 and Table 1.3 ). For the policy groups Cohesion and External aid, development and enlargement, the Court’s view is that the scope of the reservations expressed in the declarations by Directors-General and authorising officers by delegation should have been broader in order to reflect the significant deficiencies which still persist in these expenditure areas as manifest in the Court’s audit findings (see paragraphs 2.6 to 2.7 and 2.10 to 2.11 and Table 2.1 ). Cohesion remains the most problematic area and its estimated error rate stands well above those for the other policy areas. 1.35. In the Cohesion area there were significant improvements in the implementation of the management and control systems of some programmes in 2008. The assessment of the effective functioning of the systems in 545 operational programmes in the annual activity reports for 2008 of Directorates-General Regional Policy and Employment, Social Affairs an Equal Opportunities show that 78 % of programmes work well or have deficiencies with moderate impact (57 % in 2007). While the error rate remains unacceptably high, the frequency of errors has decreased: 43 % of projects in the Court’s sample were found to be affected by errors, compared to 54 % in 2007. The Commission points out that the audit sample underlying the findings only covers the 2000-2006 programme period because almost no reimbursements were made concerning the 2007-2013 programme period. See also Commission’s replies to paragraphs 6.23, 6.35 and 6.36. Considerable efforts have been made to improve the management of research policy within the limits of the applicable legal and financial framework. The Commission will continue the rigorous application of controls. The Commission will keep working to reduce the level of residual error in this policy group. The reasonable assurance concerning the legality and regularity of the underlying transactions is given by Directors-Generals in the Annual Activity Reports. When a Director-General can base this reasonable assurance on the estimated error rate below the materiality threshold, as is the case for instance for the Directorate-General for Enlargement dealt with by the Court in policy group External aid, development and enlargement, no reservation has to be made. For the area of External aid, Development and Enlargement, the Commission has designed its controls for this policy group to cover the full lifecycle of its multiannual projects so that it is able to prevent, or detect and correct most financial errors in the normal course of its controls. The mandatory financial audits foreseen under the Commission’s control system should allow the Commission to detect and correct these prefinancing errors — in a later accounting year — before final payments are made. The Commission’s ex-post controls confirm this low level of residual error. See also reply to paragraph 8.34.

1.36. Compared to previous years the following changes have been noted: a decrease in the estimated error rate for the policy groups Agriculture and natural resources (26)and Research, energy and transport (27). For the policy group Agriculture and natural resources, the Court estimates that the overall error rate is slightly below 2 % (see paragraph 5.13), whereas for the policy group Research, energy and transport it is still above 2 % (see paragraph 7.40). For the policy group Education and citizenship, the Court estimates that the errors have a financial impact of less than 2 %. The Court considers that this is largely due to the large share of advances, which are relatively less affected by errors than interim and final payments (see paragraphs 9.6 to 9.7 and 9.31). In the policy group Economic and financial affairs, the estimated overall error rate for the financial year 2008 is slightly above 2 % (in 2007 slightly below 2 %) due to the errors detected in FP6 spending which, however, accounts for only 8 % of the policy group’s expenditure see paragraph 10.27). 1.36. The Commission welcomes the positive overall development of the Court’s assessment, showing noticeable progress from the previous year.

1.37. The Court emphasises that its audits show that complicated or unclear eligibility criteria or other complex legal requirements, particularly in the policy groups of Agriculture and natural resources, Cohesion, Research, energy and transport as well as Economic and financial affairs, contribute significantly to the risk of error (see paragraphs 5.17 to 5.26, 5.34 to 5.52, 6.18 to 6.20, 7.12 to 7.15 and 10.11 to 10.14). 1.37. A certain degree of complexity in rules and eligibility criteria is unavoidable as these are often fixed in order to achieve desired policy objectives, which are the outcome of a complex legislative procedure where the Legislative Authority has the last word. Nevertheless, the Commission has committed itself to make proposals to the Legislative Authority for further simplification where possible. It will consider the scope for introducing further simplification of eligibility rules in its 2010 proposal for the triennial revision of the Financial Regulation. It will also study principles for further simplification of sectorial legislation for the next round of basic acts, to come into force from 2014. For Agriculture and natural resources, the results have improved thanks to the continuous efforts to simplify the legal requirements/eligibility criteria under both pillars of the CAP. See also the specific replies to paragraphs 5.17 to 5.26, 5.34 to 5.52. In the area of cohesion, modifications have been made to the regulations for 2007-2013, incorporating simplifications resulting from a joint Commission-Member States experts group. The Commission has also issued in early 2009 a digest of eligibility rules. See also the Commission’s reply to paragraphs 1.41-1.42 and 6.37(a). The 7th Framework Programme has been a step forward in simplification. As a result of the experience gained during the implementation of the programme, and if appropriate, the Commission may propose changes to its legal basis.

1.38. In policy group External aid, development and enlargement as well as Economic and financial affairs the Commission jointly manages EU expenditure with international organisations (28)on the basis of agreements which also secure the audit rights of the Court. Nevertheless, the Court’s access to UN generated audit reports and supporting documents or verification visits related to the DAS 2008 were partly or fully denied (see paragraphs 8.13 and 10.10). 1.38. The Commission fully supports the Court’s requests for information and access to documentation. The Standard Contribution Agreement with international organisations includes a text in relation to the Court’s access. See also reply to paragraph 8.13.

How to address weaknesses

1.39. The Court noted last year that, despite the positive developments in the Commission’s internal control framework, a substantial part of the transactions underlying the EU accounts remains subject to a material level of error (paragraph 1.42 of the Annual Report concerning the financial year 2007). In addition, the Court’s DAS audit highlights differences – sometimes significant – in the type, incidence and level of irregularity between, and within, policy groups. The following paragraphs seek to provide further insight into the assessment of how progress can be made towards an effective Community internal control framework (29).

1.40. Despite the Union having a single general budget there are many differences in the way the money is spent. These include: the kind of management mode; types of beneficiaries; periodicity of the aid; ways of claiming and different types of control and recovery systems. These differences arise in order to address the circumstances of the budgetary area involved and the individual objectives of the aid, and in recognition of the cost and complexity of administering and controlling the schemes.

Need for simplification

1.41. The rules governing the way the money is spent are established to ensure that the aid achieves the policy objectives sought - ‘spending on the right things at the right time’. Some rules are common to all payment types whilst others depend on the type of spending. The type and complexity of the rules therefore may also be a function of the complexity of the policy objectives. 1.42. The more onerous and complex are the rules, the greater is the risk that they will not be followed, so increasing the risk of errors occurring in transactions and policy objectives not being met. Concurrently, excessive fine-tuning in establishing very specific programme targets is bound to increase the cost in checking whether such targets have been met. Otherwise put: well designed rules and regulations which are clear to interpret and simple to apply, decrease the risk of error (paragraph 1.45 of the Annual Report concerning the financial year 2007). 1.41-1.42. The Commission agrees with the Court’s analysis, but stresses that establishing the rules is about striking the right balance between meeting often specific policy objectives avoiding over-complexity. While the Commission’s role is to propose legislation, complexity can be introduced during consideration by the Legislative Authority with which rests the final decision. The Commission has committed itself to incorporating a description of the associated control arrangements in all relevant future legislative proposals. Simplification is a major element of the Commission’s better regulation programme. The Member States are also required to simplify the eligibility criteria in their national programmes. However, a certain level of complexity is unavoidable and should be taken into account in future discussions on a tolerable level of risk. See also reply to paragraph 2.35(b). In the Cohesion area, the ESF regulation for 2007-2013 already provided for the possibility to declare indirect costs on a flat-rate basis. The possibility to use flat rates, lump sums and standard scales of unit costs for the 2007-2013 programmes was generalised for both the ERDF and ESF by amending the fund regulations in May 2009. Other simplifications were adopted in December 2008 and in May 2009. In July 2009, the Commission has also brought forward proposals for further simplifications to implementing Regulation (EC) No 1828/2006 and to the general Regulation (EC) No 1083/2006. The Commission, as a result of the experience gained during the implementation of the programme, and if appropriate, may propose changes to its legal basis.

1.43. An element of caution is appropriate. Simplifying rules merely in order to reduce the risk of irregularity might have some disadvantages if more generic rules were to result in less focused spending. Furthermore, ‘simplification’ could suggest, in some areas (see for example paragraphs 9.6 and 9.7), the relaxation of the conditions for receiving advances and an increase in the amounts that can be paid as such. However, such simplification should be supported by effective systems as otherwise irregular expenditure would only become apparent when the programmes are partially completed or completely closed, which happens later in the process. Notwithstanding these qualifications, simplification needs to remain an overriding objective. 1.43. The Commission recognises that simplification is a balance between the need for good stewardship of public funds and the achievement of often highly specific policy objectives. This balance is addressed differently in each policy area and results in different management modes and provisions, taking into account the involvement of various actors at different levels. The Commission is taking steps to ensure its control systems are as effective as possible, taking full account of the multiannual nature of many programmes and the need for an efficient and effective control system to operate the right controls at the right time. As far as the policy area Education and culture is concerned, the design of the new programmes for 2007-2013 simplified the rules and made extensive use of lump sum financing. This, together with the rigorous approval of the national management and control systems, should reduce the risk linked to final payments. See also reply to paragraph 9.7.

The necessary response

1.44. It has to be acknowledged that management of the EU budget has evolved piecemeal over time in response to the type of expenditure programmes which were introduced subsequently. The rules governing the spending as well as the management methods need to take into account the specificities of the various targets of budgetary spending. These targets, however, should not be overly detailed, resulting in an excessive administrative burden and regulations which are difficult to observe. This requires, on the part of the Commission, a judicious review of the underlying regulatory framework and management structure of specific expenditure programmes. 1.44. The Commission stresses that establishing the rules is the competence of the Legislator. The Commission has recently made a number of proposals for simplification (and certain simplifications have been decided for the Structural Funds) and it will continue to propose simplifications where this is commensurate with achieving specific policy objectives. In this respect, the Commission’s work on the tolerable risk of error needs to be considered, as it promotes a clear view on the risk which can be controlled in the light of eligibility conditions and the control environment and hence on the risk which it is not cost-effective to control. The Commission will be making concrete proposals to the Budgetary Authority on tolerable risk in the research, energy and transport, rural development, external aid and administrative expenditure in 2010. See also reply to paragraph 1.41-1.42.

1.45. In this context, the first and essential task must be to ensure that reliable and comprehensive information is compiled to allow a credible evaluation of the existing costs of controls (30). 1.45. The Commission will collect information on the costs of controls as part of its proposals on the tolerable risk of error, beginning with the research, energy and transport, rural development, external aid and administrative expenditure fields in 2010.

1.46. Equally crucial must be a careful assessment as to whether the maximum benefit is being derived from the current level of expenditure on controls. If this were judged not to be the case; than the immediate goal should be to derive full advantage from the money which is already being spent and from the resources already deployed for such purpose (31). 1.46. The Commission has fostered a continuing improvement in its internal control systems (as recognised in paragraph 1.39) and will vigorously pursue these efforts. These control systems are designed to provide reasonable assurance, being based on an appropriate balance between the different types of controls (‘the right controls at the right time’). For instance, ex-ante controls can identify certain error types but not others, and it would not be cost effective to control all projects on the spot. As a result of the Action Plan to improve supervision in the Structural Funds, the Commission has already taken ex-ante actions to improve control systems. It also points out that the 2 %-3 % reduction in the error rate through more effective ex-ante control (referred to for the ERDF in the illustrative case study presented in the ‘tolerable risk’ communication (COM(2008) 866) results from an assessment of errors identified by the Court in the DAS 2005 and is rather a measure of the ‘control risk’ (the risk that certain controls do not function effectively in some cases).

1.47. Alongside necessary actions aiming to ensure effectiveness of systems, the indicated objective must be to determine the appropriate balance between the cost of controls and the benefits they bring (see recommendation by the Court in the Annual Report concerning the financial year 2007, paragraph 1.52). 1.47. The concept of efficient and effective internal control is enshrined in the Financial Regulation (Article 28a). In line with this, each Commission service is required in its annual activity report to present the results of internal control, to report on its effectiveness and to take action to address identified weaknesses. Therefore, the Commission considers that, as improving control structures and simplifying procedures is an ongoing and continuous process, such efforts need to be permanent. In line with the Court’s suggestion, the Commission will further examine the balance between the costs and benefits of control in preparing its proposals on tolerable risk beginning with the research, energy and transport, rural development, external aid and administrative expenditure fields in 2010.

1.48. It would be desirable if, whenever expenditure programmes are being considered for approval, the risks associated with them and the costs of administration and control necessary to contain these risks to a cost effective level are set out. In this manner, the relevant decisions by Council and Parliament would be taken on a more informed basis, explicitly considering the risks and costs involved. 1.48. In the Communication ‘Towards a common understanding of a concept of tolerable risk of error’ (COM(2008) 866), the Commission has committed itself to incorporating a description of the associated control arrangements in all relevant future legislative proposals.