WRITTEN QUESTION No. 320/96 by Salvador GARRIGA POLLEDO to the Council. Ecofin meeting of 19 June 1995
Date: 1996-02-27
Institutions: European Parliament, GARRIGA POLLEDO
Subjects: European Court of Auditors, administrative court, budgetary control, fight against wastage, fund (EU), sanction (EU)













EUR-Lex - 91996E0320 - EN






Avis juridique important




|



91996E0320

WRITTEN QUESTION No. 320/96 by Salvador GARRIGA POLLEDO to the Council. Ecofin meeting of 19 June 1995  


Official Journal C 280 , 25/09/1996 P. 0021 





WRITTEN QUESTION E-0320/96 by Salvador Garriga Polledo (PPE) to the Council (27 February 1996)Subject: Ecofin meeting of 19 June 1995In the conclusions of the Ecofin Council meeting of 19 June 1995 on combating wastefulness and the misuse of Community resources, the following paragraph appears under item 3, headed 'In partnership':'in the context of greater cooperation between Member States and the Court of Auditors, give an appropriate response to the Court's observations'.Can the Council explain what constitutes, in its judgment, an appropriate response? Does this mean that the Council would accept the criticisms which the Court of Auditors makes of the absence of reliable auditing of the spending of Community funds? Will this context of greater cooperation involve collaboration, which is currently non-existent, between national courts of auditors and the Court of Auditors?Joint Reply (13 June 1996)1. As it has already stated in the comments accompanying its recommendation on the discharge to be given to the Commission in respect of the 1994 budget, it is the Council's wish that in the context of the Court's annual reports Member States should be given the opportunity to reply to the Court's comments. It is essential, in the interests of closer cooperation between the Member States and the European institutions, and in particular with the Court of Auditors, that the administrations be given this opportunity to reply in good time; in this connection, the Council takes the view that close contacts on specific issues can only improve the effect of controls and their follow-up.The Council's position on the Court of Auditor's observations in its annual report and in its special reports is detailed in the comments accompanying the abovementioned Recommendation which was adopted on 11 March 1996. The Honourable Member should refer to it for the Council's comments on individual areas of Community budget expenditure and on the control systems for each area. Generally speaking, the Council supports the Court's recommendations and calls upon the Commission to act on them to ensure that Community expenditure is effected in a manner consistent with the interests of the European Union.2. Regarding collaboration between the courts of auditors of the Member States and the European Court of Auditors, the Council recommended in its 'Act of 26 July 1995' ((OJ No C 316, 27.11.1995, p. 48. )) the adoption by the Member States, in accordance with their respective constitutional requirements, of the Convention on the protection of the European Communities' financial interests. Article 2 of the Convention provides that each Member State shall take the necessary measures to ensure that fraud affecting the European Communities' financial interests, and participating in, instigating, or attempting such conduct, are punishable by effective, proportionate and dissuasive criminal penalties, including, at least in cases of serious fraud, penalties involving deprivation of liberty which can give rise to extradition.