WRITTEN QUESTION E-2393/00 by Richard Howitt (PSE) to the Commission. SCR Audit Unit.
Date: 2000-07-13
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: administrative reform, audit, management audit, operation of the Institutions

C 136 E/28

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

8.5.2001

(2001/C 136 E/030)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2393/00

by Richard Howitt (PSE) to the Commission

(13 July 2000)

Subject: SCR Audit Unit

Could the Commission please provide the Terms of Reference and Operational Procedures of the SCR
(Service Commun Relex) Audit Unit and clarify in particular:

1. What is the Commission(cid:146)s view on the value of a clear separation of functions between audit, policy

and executive functions within the services?

2.

Is the Unit seen as an independent audit unit and if so, what measures are taken to ensure that this is
in practice the case?

3. What procedures exist to monitor the work of the Audit Unit and ensure it carries out its functions
adequately and with strict observance of its Terms of Reference and the Operational Procedures?

4. What measures are taken to safeguard the rights of beneficiaries of Commission grants during an audit

exercise conducted by the SCR Audit Unit?

5.

Is it Commission policy to provide auditees with a written set of Terms of Reference for the audit
exercise, a clear explanation of their rights with regard to the audit process at the start of the audit
exercise and a copy of the audit report once completed and if not, for what reasons? What right of
appeal do auditees have with regard to the findings of an audit and the view taken by the Commission
of its results?

6. What steps are taken to ensure that auditees are given adequate information and time to enable them
to respond to the findings of any such audit, discuss these findings with the Commission and agree
with them on any remedial steps to be taken?

7. With regard to the follow-up of an audit exercise, does the Commission distinguish between cases, on
the one hand, where it would pursue a policy of unilateral and immediate action with regard to an
auditee, and, on the other hand, cases where it would expect to agree first a plan for remedial action
with the auditee before the findings were allowed to affect the Commission(cid:146)s administration of grants
for the auditee? If so, what criteria are used to make this distinction and what steps are taken to
ensure they are strictly adhered to?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(28 September 2000)

As the Honourable Member may be aware, the Commission is in the process of undertaking a root and
branch reform of its administrative and financial management. Two key elements of this reform are to
increase the autonomy of the delegated authorising officers in the directorates general and services, while
requiring them to operate proper internal controls, and to create an internal audit service to review and
report on the effectiveness of these internal controls.

The reform also foresees the establishment of an audit function in each of the directorates general and
services. In addition to advising the director general or the head of the service on improvements to the
system of internal control, the audit service would also carry out the audit of projects and financial
activities funded by the Commission. In some services such as the Common service for external relations,
established audit units already carry out part of this activity.

The audits of the grants awarded and of the projects funded are carried out in accordance with the
conditions established by the contracts governing the grants of Community funds. A letter informing the
beneficiary that an audit is to be carried out is always sent.

Should the Commission auditors find that Community funds have been granted on the basis of incorrect
information supplied by the beneficiary or that the funds have not been used in accordance with the
contractual conditions and regulations, this would be reported to the delegated authorising officers, who
would decide on any action to be taken.

8.5.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 136 E/29

The audit report is an internal and confidential document that is followed up by the Commission services
concerned. In some cases and where appropriate, the relevant managing service may release the audit
report, in whole or in part, to the beneficiary contractor for reaction and explanation.

(2001/C 136 E/031)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2394/00

by Luckas Vander Taelen (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(13 July 2000)

Subject: Environmental impact of the 2004 Olympic Games infrastructure development in Athens

The infrastructure plans for the 2004 Olympic Games in Athens are the source of many criticisms due to
their environmental
impact. Examples are the indoor table tennis stadium in the Veikou Park, which
violates a protected forest area; the olympic village damaging the National Park of Parnitha; the rowing
and canoeing centre affecting the Schinias wetland area.

Schinias,
for example, has been included in the scientific list of proposed Natura 2000 sites (code
GR3000003). Moreover, as 50 bird species included in Annex I of the Birds Directive 79/409/EEC (1)
have been identified in the area, this has been classified as an Important Bird Area. The infrastructure
project proposed in the area would affect three priority habitats (Posidonia beds, wooded dunes with Pinus
pinea and/or Pinus pinaster, Mediterranean temporary ponds) as classified by the Habitat Directive 92/43/
EEC (2). The impact on the cultural environment is also seriously worrying: the historical battle of 490 BC
between the Athenian-Platean armies and the Persians took place at the great plain of Marathon, where
Schinias is located. The Greek Ministry of Culture has already expressed its disagreement with the
construction of the complex at Schinias.

According to the existing Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA), the construction of the rowing and
canoeing centre would even have positive effects on the natural environment. However, four major Greek
environmental organisations are contesting this statement and claiming that their criticisms have not been
taken into consideration. The EIA study fails also to examine alternative locations, although they exist.

1. What action does the Commission plan to take in order to ensure that infrastructure development
relating to the 2004 Olympic Games does not contribute to the further degradation of the environmental
and cultural heritage?

Can the Commission say whether EU funding is involved in the projects for the rowing and canoeing

2.
centre at Schinias, the indoor table tennis stadium in the Veikou Park and the olympic village?

3.

Has the Commission financed the conservation of the Natura 2000 Schinias site?

4. What measures does the Commission intend to take in order to preserve the Schinias site from
irreversible degradation?

5.
Can the Commission verify whether the EIA of the rowing and canoeing centre has respected the
provisions of the EIA Directive 97/11/EC (3), especially with regard to public consultation and assessment
of alternative locations?

(1) OJ L 103, 25.4.1979, p. 1.
(2) OJ L 206, 22.7.1992, p. 7.
(3) OJ L 73, 14.3.1997, p. 5.