WRITTEN QUESTION E-1569/03 by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Commission. Creation of a legal distinction between the conflicting roles of accountants as auditors and consultants of large companies.
Date: 2003-05-08
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: accountant, audit, auditing, financial control, large business, occupational status, provision of services, self-employed person

6.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 58 E/79

Internal Audit who is responsible to EIB’s management and Audit Committee for conducting initial
investigations into allegations of irregularities concerning EIB or EIB-managed funds. EIB’s Internal
Audit (IA) has reviewed all relevant documents and procedures and has interviewed staff concerned.

The Commission has received the following information from OLAF:

In late May 2003, the EIB sent a complete dossier regarding this matter to OLAF. OLAF is presently
analysing this information and will shortly decide on whether it should open an investigation
regarding the allegations of irregularities in connection with EIB loans to Biopain.

(2004/C 58 E/096)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1569/03

by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(8 May 2003)

Subject: Creation of a legal distinction between the conflicting roles of accountants as auditors and

consultants of large companies

1.
Is the Commission aware of the findings of the investigation into financial directors and chartered
accountants commissioned by the Financiëel Dagblad newspaper and the Nova TV programme, which
questioned 935 financial directors of the largest companies in the Netherlands and 1 000 chartered
accountants from the Nivra register of Auditors?

2. What is the Commission’s view of the fact that a majority of the accountants surveyed said that their
consultancy and auditing work for companies was closely or inextricably linked and that they even carried
out activities relating to the private interests of directors?

Does the Commission share my view that this may give rise to a conflict between the presumed
3.
independence of auditors and their dependent position in that they are partly responsible for the efforts of
company management to reduce artificially the profits to be declared to the tax authorities or increase
artificially the profit forecasts for shareholders, as well as for the rewards and golden handshakes paid to
directors, which are not usually disclosed to the public?

4.
Does the Commission consider it desirable that the two conflicting responsibilities of accountants
should be strictly separated? Which EU Member States already have legislation separating these
responsibilities? What does the Commission think of the proposal
in the Netherlands to appoint the
Financial Markets Authority as an independent and publicly funded supervisory body for accountants?

How can such a distinction also be introduced in Member States where it does not already exist? Is

5.
the Commission taking any initiatives in this direction?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(13 June 2003)

1.

The Commission is not aware of the details of this investigation.

2.
In May 2002, the Commission issued a Recommendation on ‘Statutory Auditors’ Independence in the
Union (1). The starting point of the Recommendation is that a statutory auditor should not carry out a
statutory audit if there are any financial, business or other relationships between him and his client
(including the provision of additional services) that would compromise his independence.

C 58 E/80

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

6.3.2004

From a European perspective, the role of the statutory auditor does not include a specific duty in
3.
relation to tax advice or other forms of advice but deals exclusively with providing an opinion on the true
and fair view of financial statements.

The responsibility of the statutory auditor is to perform thorough audits of the financial statements
4.
in the public interest. Business and financial relationships and the provision of non-audit services to the
audit client may not undermine this responsibility. This does not imply a strict prohibition of non audit
services. The Commission is aware that there is pressure to restrict even further the possibility for an
auditor to provide additional services and will conduct a study on the impact of a more restrictive
approach.

This study is one of the actions included in the Communication on reinforcing statutory audit in the
Union which the Commission issued on 21 May 2003. The provision of additional services is prohibited
in Greece, France and Italy (for listed companies).

Public oversight of the audit profession in the Union is one of the other priorities in the Communication.
From a European perspective,
it is important that Member States’ oversight fulfils certain (functional)
quality criteria. However, the structure of oversight is primarily a responsibility for Member States.

5.
The aforementioned study into the consequences of a strict(er) prohibition as well as the practical
experience with the implementation of the Commission Recommendation, will allow the Commission to
decide in due course whether and which further action may be needed in this area.

(1) OJ L 191, 19.7.2002.

(2004/C 58 E/097)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1574/03

by Chris Davies (ELDR) to the Commission

(8 May 2003)

Subject: State aid approval for coal mine methane extraction

Has the Commission received an application from the UK Government for state aid approval to grant the
coal mine methane industry an 80 % exemption from the UK climate change levy?

If so, what response has the Commission made or when will it do so?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(16 June 2003)

The Commission has not received an application from the British Government for state aid approval to
grant the coal mine methane industry an 80 % exemption from the British Climate Change Levy (CCL).

the
The Commission has, however, received a notification from the British Government
production of electricity using coal mine methane a full exemption from the British CCL. The Commission
has opened the formal investigation procedure according to Article 88(2) EC Treaty on this notification as
it has doubts, at first sight, that the aid granted is compatible with State aid rules. This decision was
published in the Official Journal (1), and third parties were invited to submit comments within one month
from the date of publication. The Commission has received third party’s comments at the end of April

to grant