Opinion No 8/2003

on a proposal for a decision of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing a Community action programme to promote activities in the field of the protection of the Community's financial interests

(2003/C 318/02)

THE COURT OF AUDITORS OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community, and in particular Article 280(4) thereof,

Having regard to the Commission proposal for a decision of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing a Community action programme to promote activities in the field of the protection of the Community's financial interests(1),

Having regard to the Council's request for an opinion on this proposal, received at the Court on 6 August 2003,

Whereas the decision proposed is based on Article 280(4) of the Treaty, pursuant to which the Council, after consulting the Court of Auditors, adopts the necessary measures in the fields of the prevention of and fight against fraud affecting the financial interest of the Community,

HAS ADOPTED THE FOLLOWING OPINION:

THE PROGRAMME PROPOSED

1. The Court welcomes the Commission proposal as an initiative in favour of the protection of the Community's financial interests. The Court also appreciates that a specific "basic instrument" is proposed for this initiative. The Court considers, however, that the Commission proposal could be improved as suggested hereafter.

2. The Decision proposed should clearly state which needs the programme, called "Hercule", should satisfy that are not yet taken into account within the existing framework of measures for the protection of the Community's financial interests(2).

3. Article 27(3) of the Financial Regulation provides that "specific, measurable, achievable, relevant and timed objectives" shall be set for all the sectors of activity covered by the budget. The proposed "Hercule" programme does not fully comply with these provisions, as its objectives are rather indefinite and only refer to activities of a general nature, like "organisation of seminars and conferences", "promotion of scientific studies and discussions", "coordination of activities", "training and awareness", "dissemination of scientific information", "technical assistance", etc. Sometimes the objectives are somewhat contradictory, as when they are defined as "aligning the substance of activities so as to ensure effective and equivalent levels of protection on the basis of mutually agreed best practice while also respecting the distinct traditions of each Member State".

4. Article 7 (Monitoring and evaluation) of the draft decision states that "by 31 December 2009 at the latest, the Commission shall report to the European Parliament and to the Council on the achievement of the objectives of this programme. The report shall be based on the results obtained by the beneficiaries and assess, in particular, their effectiveness in achieving the objectives defined in Article 1 and the Annex". Clear, technically well-defined and measurable objectives would facilitate a serious, factual and useful evaluation of achievements.

5. Furthermore, a report only after the end of the programme, when the whole of the expenditure has been made, does not seem appropriate. Information on the achievements and results obtained should be presented regularly, e.g. with the annual grants programmes and calls for proposals.

FINANCIAL ASPECTS

6. It appears from the fourth recital of the proposal and the annexed "legislative financial statement" that the Commission intends to use around 2,0 million euro of the total allocation of around 21,5 million euro to support "conferences, congresses and meetings in connection with the activities of the associations of European lawyers for the protection of the financial interests of the Community". It is important that the money be used in the most efficient way. Therefore, the calls for proposals should be carried out according to the principle of a fair competition among all technically qualified authorities and bodies.

7. According to the "legislative financial statement", the abovementioned amount of around 2,0 million euro, spread over the five years of the duration of the programme, should be entered in a specific budget article (24 02 04) and the rest of the annual allocation in another budget article (24 02 05). In accordance with the budgetary principles of specification and transparency(3), the appropriations relative to the "Hercule" programme should be entered in a single budget article, as has been done for the "Pericles" programme. This article could be subdivided into items corresponding to specific activities to be carried out within the framework of the programme, if such activities are clearly identified and described in the decision setting up the programme.

This opinion was adopted by the Court of Auditors in Luxembourg on 11 November 2003.

For the Court of Auditors

Juan Manuel Fabra Vallés

President

(1) COM(2003) 278 final of 27 May 2003.

(2) In particular, the "Overall strategic approach" for the protection of the Communities' financial interests and the fight against fraud for the period 2001 to 2005, adopted on 28 June 2000 (COM(2000) 358 final of 28 June 2000) and the "action plans" implementing the approach, which include various activities already carried out by the Advisory Committee for the Coordination of Fraud Prevention (generally known as Cocolaf) and the European Anti-fraud Office (OLAF).

(3) Articles 21, 29 and 41 of the Financial Regulation of 25 June 2002 (Council Regulation (EC) No 1605/2002 (OJ L 248, 16.9.2002)).