WRITTEN QUESTION E-0649/03 by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Commission. Criticism by the Netherlands National Audit Office of the lack of transparency in the management of EU funds by fund flow and by Member State.
Date: 2003-03-05
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: EU Member State, EU financing, European Court of Auditors, Netherlands, administration of the Institutions, dissemination of EU information, financial management, management audit, publication of accounts

13.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 65 E/39

The Directive provides for the possibility to refuse conditions in cases where an asylum seeker has failed to
demonstrate that the asylum claim was made as soon as reasonably practicable after arrival in a Member
State.
It also requires that decisions to refuse conditions shall be taken individually, objectively and
impartially and reasons shall be given. Moreover, the Directive provides that such decisions shall be based
on the particular situation of the person concerned, especially with regard to certain categories of
vulnerable persons and it ensures that such decisions may be the subject of an appeal.

(1) OJ L 31, 6.2.2003, p. 18.

(2004/C 65 E/039)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0649/03

by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(5 March 2003)

Subject: Criticism by the Netherlands National Audit Office of the lack of transparency in the management

of EU funds by fund flow and by Member State

1.
Is the Commission aware that the Netherlands National Audit Office published its first annual ‘EU
trends report’ on 18 February 2003, the aim of which is to chart developments in the management of
Community funds and oversight and monitoring of their allocation, as well as legality and effectiveness in
the Netherlands and throughout the European Union?

their results are not published, so that

2.
Is the Commission aware that the 2003 report points out that, while the Commission exercises
the public is unable to establish any link between
checks,
shortcomings in financial management and certain countries or flows of funds, and that the report also
criticises the fact that since 1994 the European Court of Auditors, in its reports on the reliability of
income and expenditure, has made no specific reference by country or fund flow, and hence can make no
positive statements on the accounts of the European Union?

3.
Is there a law in all the Member States comparable to the Dutch law on supervision of European
subsidies, which was adopted following the discovery of errors in the management of the ESF in the period
from 1994-1999, and which requires ministers to exercise central oversight over decentralised spending?

Is oversight at national level limited in practice to the Member States Austria, the United Kingdom

4.
and the Netherlands, and the candidate countries Estonia, Latvia, Hungary and Romania?

5. Why are results broken down by fund flow not published, particularly as regards the Structural and
Cohesion Funds and agricultural subsidies?

6. Why are results broken down by Member State, including Member States which themselves practise
no or little oversight, not published?

7. What is the Commission doing, particularly in the light of the report in question, to present these
financial data to the public in a better form, thus reinforcing the possibility of public oversight of
movements of EU funds?

Supplementary answer
given by Mrs Schreyer on behalf of the Commission

(10 July 2003)

1.
The Commission has taken note of the first annual ‘EU-trendrapport 2003’ by the Dutch ‘Algemene
Rekenkamer’. Like similar reports produced by other national audit bodies, this is a good example of a
national audit institution supporting improvement in the management of Community funds by the
Member States.

The Commission will take account of the recommendations made by the ‘Rekenkamer’ where they can
improve such management and draw them to the Member States’ attention.

C 65 E/40

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

13.3.2004

In line with recognised auditing standards, the Commission does not validate audit findings until they
2.
have been confirmed in discussion with the auditees.
the
Commission considers that money has been improperly spent in the field of the structural funds, it can
recover this money by imposing so-called ‘financial corrections’. These decisions are publicised. However,
in many cases the Member State will take the necessary corrective action in response to the audit findings
before the final stage is completed. Furthermore, the Commission publishes an annual report on the
protection of the Community financial interests and the fight against fraud which contains, inter alia,
statistics and analyses on irregularities concerning the Cohesion and structural funds and agricultural
subsidies, as communicated by the Member States.

If, after completion of

this procedure,

The annual reports of the European Court of Auditors since 1994 have concluded that, except for certain
observations largely on accrual matters, the accounts faithfully reflect the Communities’ revenue and
expenditure for the year and their financial position at the year end. The Court has, however, not given full
assurance as to the legality and regularity of the underlying transactions, inter alia on the basis of findings
concerning payments for the Structural Funds. Upon receipt of the Court of Auditor’s annual report, the
Commission informs the Member States immediately of the details of theat report which relate to
managament of the funds for which they are responsible. They,
in turn, are obliged to present their
observations within 60 days. The Commission transmits then a synthesis of Member States’s replies to the
other institutions (Article 143 paragraph 6 of the Financial Regulation).

The Commission is attempting to improve this situation within the limits imposed by the system of shared
management whereby the Structural Fund monies are administered in the Member States while the
Commission remains responsible for the overall
the Community’s budget. The
Commission has markedly tightened up the requirements on Member States for sound financial
management.

implementation of

3. Member States’ systems for supervising the management of Community funds vary according to their
constitutional arrangements and distribution of competences among the different levels of the adminis-
tration. In some Member States, national ministers may be responsible; in others national ministers have
no, or very limited, legal rights of supervision over Community spending at a regional level. In any case
the applicable regulation provides for a wide range of measures that Member States are required to take for
the financial control of assistance [see, in particular, Article 38 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999
of 21 June 1999 laying down general provisions on the Structural Funds (1) and Commission Regulation
(EC) No 438/2001 of 2 March 2001 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council
Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999 as regards the management and control systems for assistance granted
under the Structural Funds (2)].

4.
All Member States have, as already outlined under point 3, systems for supervising the management
of Structural Funds. The Community Regulations (in particular Council Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999 and
Commission Regulation (EC) No 438/2001) require it. The level of government at which this supervision is
exercised, varies according to the Member States’ constitutional arrangements.

The Commission would refer the Honourable member to the Annual Report of the Commission
5.
mentioned in point 2 above and also to the annual activity report of the European Anti-Fraud Office
(OLAF).

All Member States are required to supervise the management of Structural Funds and agricultural

6.
subsidies and the Commission ensures they do so.

The Commission’s audits focus on specific priorities which vary from year to year, except for
7.
agricultural subsidies where there is an annual clearance of accounts, and, for reasons of efficiency,
increasingly relate to the systems used rather than individual transactions. For its annual reports the Court
of Auditors covers a larger number of transactions but not sufficient to establish annual country-by-
country comparisons. In addition, data on protection of the Communities’ financial interests can be found,
as already indicated, in the annual reports of OLAF and the Commission.

(1) OJ L 161, 26.6.1999.
(2) OJ L 63, 3.3.2001.