WRITTEN QUESTION P-3279/03 by Maurizio Turco (NI) to the Commission. Quality checks by the Commission on the Clearance Audit Trail System (CATS) database.
Date: 2003-10-30
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: EU control, European Anti-fraud Office, European Commission, agricultural product, audit, data processing, database, export refund, third country

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 78 E/249

According to the information available the meeting went well and was most promising.

These developments are of major importance for Europe in general and the EU in particular, since they
create a new opportunity for two-way international cooperation with China, based on the third most
important European language spoken worldwide, Portuguese, and with Macao as the hub.

Can the Commission therefore say:

(cid:1) whether it sent any representatives or observers to the meeting;

(cid:1) what information it has gathered and what conclusions it has drawn;

(cid:1) what effect these matters will have on enhanced European cooperation with Macao, as mentioned in

the EP resolution adopted on 8 April 2003?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(11 December 2003)

The Commission was not invited to participate in the first forum for economic and trade cooperation
between China and Portuguese-speaking countries held in Macao on 12, 13 and 14 October. It was
therefore not represented at this meeting.

Nonetheless,
it has taken note of the signing of an action plan for economic and trade cooperation
between China and the seven Portuguese-speaking countries and of the ‘hub’ role for relations between the
two parties assigned to Macao by the forum’s participants. The Commission also notes with interest the
Special Administrative Region’s designation as the forum’s permanent secretary for the organisation of a
second meeting in 2006.

The Commission notes that these fresh developments follow on from its own communication on Macao
dating back to 1999 (1), which states that in the EU’s view Macao has a key role to play as a bridge
between Asia and Europe. That role is reflected in current cooperation between the Commission and the
Special Administrative Region of Macao.

(1) COM(1999) 484 final.

(2004/C 78 E/0252)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-3279/03

by Maurizio Turco (NI) to the Commission

(30 October 2003)

Subject: Quality checks by the Commission on the Clearance Audit Trail System (CATS) database

Knowing that:

(a) Extracts from the European Commission’s Clearance Audit Trail System (CATS) database, which
contains data from the Member States on refunds for exports of Community agricultural products to
third countries, were annexed to the supplementary answer to Written Question P-3202/02 (1).

C 78 E/250

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

27.3.2004

(b) The supplementary answer to Written Questions E-1477/03-1480/2003 (2) stated:

(cid:1) that the Commission was carrying out a set of quality checks (on the code lists, tallying of overall
amounts with annual declarations, compliance with the rules and completeness of the data);

(cid:1) that the quality of the data was generally adequate for clearance of accounts purposes and;

(cid:1) that no errors had been committed by any Member State when indicating the unit of
measurement for the amounts exported (kilograms rather than tonnes), but that there had been
some easily-identifiable oversights.

(c) The issue of the correct use of the code lists (quality check) is addressed in Written Question E-3113/

2003 (3).

(d) Examination of the CATS database in relation to refunds on exports to the Vatican City State,
Switzerland, Andorra, Liechtenstein and San Maríno in the years 1998-2001 shows that out of a total
of EUR 639 421 671,77 refunded for the export of Community products:

(cid:1) EUR 9 067 116,01 were paid in the absence of any indication of the product and the unit of

measurement;

(cid:1) EUR 14 173 353,56 were paid in the absence of any indication of the product;

(cid:1) and EUR 74 115 436,13 were paid in the absence of the unit of measurement;

making a total of EUR 97 355 905,7 or 15,23 % of the total volume of export refunds, bearing in
mind that this examination did not look into ‘errors’.

In the light of the above, can the Commission indicate:

1. how and by whom the set of quality checks is conducted, or in other words whether it is satisfied

with the checks carried out;

2. whether it genuinely considers (cid:1) as it has stated (cid:1) that the quality of the data is generally adequate
for clearance of accounts purposes, or in other words whether it bases clearance activities solely on
the declarations made by Member States;

3. whether any investigations into export refunds are currently being conducted by the Court of Auditors

and/or OLAF?

(1) OJ C 137 E, 12.6.2003, p. 172.
(2) OJ C 70 E, 20.3.2004, p. 45.
(3) See page 223.

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(4 December 2003)

The Commission refers the Honourable Member to its answers to his Written Questions E-1477/03 to
E-1480/03 (1) and to its answers to his Written Questions E-3113/03 (2) and P-3202/02.

refers

The Honourable Member claims to base the figures in his written question on an answer given to Written
Question P-3202/02. Unfortunately, the Honourable Member has not correctly quoted from this answer
since he
figure of
to an amount of EUR 639 421 671,77 instead of
EUR 321 711 242,39 which is the total amount of the refunds paid for exports during the period 1998-
2001 in the said countries (3). In fact each amount quoted in the written question is inaccurate and can,
therefore, not be confirmed by the Commission and it is not certain how and from where the Honourable
Member extracted these figures.

correct

e.g.

the

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 78 E/251

The Commission considers that this fact might have an impact on the assessment of the Honourable
Member and have an influence on the purpose of his questions.

In light of the above:

1. The Commission receives computer files each year from the Member States concerning details of all
individual payments made to the beneficiaries pursuant to Commission Regulation (EC) No 2390/
1999 (4). The detailed information is stored in the CATS (5) database.

CATS is a huge and very detailed database, containing over 137 million data records and around
4,09 billion related number of fields (6). Obviously it is not possible to check all these individual fields.
In order to improve the data quality, the Commission has continuously refined the CATS database
since its creation, as well as the corresponding Regulation. Data quality is a constant concern and, as a
result of the yearly checks, the quality of the computer files is steadily improving.

As for the specific controls of the data from the financial year 2000 onwards the Commission
examines four different quality aspects of the computer files received from the Member States
pursuant to Commission Regulation (EC) No 2390/1999.

Each year, the Commission undertakes a reconciliation of the amounts declared from the Member
States with the respective annual declarations. Possible differences need to be justified.

The second aspect is the respect of code lists. Commission Regulation (EC) No 2390/1999 requires
standard codes for a certain number of fields. From the financial year 2002 onwards, compliance with
the computer data to the
the code lists is automatically checked during the transmission of
Commission.

The third quality aspect includes the completeness of the data supplied by the Member States in
respect of the budget posts. From the financial year 2002 onwards, some data elements are already
checked during the transmission process.

The last item within the quality control is the respect of the deadline of 10 February for sending the
computer data to the Commission.

Each year, the Commission communicates the conclusions and findings made in the quality checks to
the Member States in order to improve the quality of the computer data for the next financial year.
This feedback also allows Member States to adapt
their computer systems before sending the
computer files for the next financial year.

2. CATS was created to assist the Commission in the context of the Clearance of Accounts procedure.
CATS has been operational since the financial year 2000. The auditors of the Commission are using it
to prepare and perform their European Agriculture Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF) Guarantee
expenditure related audits. This database is thus primarily and above all an audit tool helping to carry
out audits.

According to Commission Regulation (EC) No 2390/1999 Member States make available to the
Commission all the information by budget item in respect of each individual operation making up the
payments by and the receipts of the EAGGF Guarantee Section. Firstly, the quality of the data depends
on the information supplied once a year by the Member States which are the suppliers of this data.
Secondly, the Commission undertakes specific quality controls, as mentioned under question 1., to
improve steadily the data quality. Therefore, the Commission has a reliable tool to be used in their
audits of the agricultural expenditure carried out in the Member States. That part of the data, which
undergoes more in depth controls in the context of the audits and enquiries, is correlated by the
findings made in the Member States. Despite the fact that it is not possible to check every element of
each computer record, the data quality is in general adequate for the use in this Clearance of Accounts
activity.

As a result, since CATS has been created and designed as an audit tool, it is therefore only of limited
use for providing statistical and analytical information. It is important to stress that parameters which
are important for the controls prevail, and most importantly the expenditure is cross-checked and
confirmed by the monthly declarations of the Member States.

C 78 E/252

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

27.3.2004

3. The previous general enquiries that were carried out by the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) in this
matter were conducted on its behalf by the Italian authorities as detailed in the answer given to the
Honourable Member’s Written Question E-2299/02 (7).

Currently, OLAF does not have any specific cases of investigation into the export of agricultural
products to the states listed by the Honourable Member.

As for the Court of Auditors, the question must be addressed directly to this institution.

(1) OJ C 70 E, 20.3.2004, p. 45.
(2) See page 223.
(3) Swiss Confederation, the Principality of Andorra, the Principality of Liechtenstein, the Republic of San Marino and

the Vatican State City.

(4) Commission Regulation (EC) No 2390/1999 of 25 October 1999 laying down detailed rules of the application of
Regulation (EC) No 1663/95 as regards the form and content of the accounting information that the Member States
must hold at the disposal of the Commission for the purposes of the clearance of the EAGGF Guarantee Section
accounts, OJ L 295, 16.11.1999. Annexes I, II and III of this Regulation are updated annually.
‘Clearance Audit Trail System’.

(5)
(6) Each payment record can contain up to 128 different data fields.
(7) OJ C 110 E, 8.5.2003.

(2004/C 78 E/0253)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3280/03

by Maurizio Turco (NI) to the Commission

(5 November 2003)

Subject: Lack of specific monitoring of product quantities exported from Member States to the Vatican City

State under the export refund system

Knowing that:

(a) Extracts from the European Commission’s Clearance Audit Trail System (CATS) database, which
contains data from the Member States on refunds for exports of Community agricultural products to
third countries, were annexed to the supplementary answer to Written Question P-3202/02 (1).

(b) Consultation of the CATS database shows that in the period 1998-2001:

(cid:1) 321 711 242,39 euro were refunded for exports to the Vatican;

(cid:1) 281 866 767,22 euro were refunded for exports to Switzerland;

(cid:1) 35 414 204,76 euro were refunded for exports to Andorra;

(cid:1) 429 415,48 euro were refunded for exports to Liechtenstein;

(cid:1) and 41,92 euro were refunded for exports to San Maríno.

(c) The supplementary answer to Written Questions E-1477/03-E-1480/03 (2) states that:

(cid:1) There is no specific monitoring of the quantities of beet and cane sugar and chemically pure
sucrose in solid form exported from Member States to the Vatican City State. The quantity of
exports to this country appears reasonable.

(cid:1) In the case of exports of agricultural products with refund from the Community to the Vatican
City, the Vatican City authorities certify that they have been released for consumption in the
territory of the Vatican City or the institutions and offices of the Holy See.

(cid:1) As regards the special provisions for products exported with refund to the Vatican, the customs
agreement between Italy and the Vatican City and Community legislation on export refunds …
apply