Opinion No 8/2003 on a proposal for a decision of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing a Community action programme to promote activities in the field of the protection of the Community's financial interests
Date: 2003-11-11
Institutions: European Court of Auditors
Subjects: EU action, EU financing, action programme, fraud against the EU

30.12.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 318/5

OPINION No 8/2003

on a proposal for a decision of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing a
Community action programme to promote activities in the field of the protection of the
Community’s financial interests

(2003/C 318/02)

THE COURT OF AUDITORS OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

taken into account within the existing framework of measures for
the protection of the Community’s financial interests (2).

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Commu-
nity, and in particular Article 280(4) thereof,

Having regard to the Commission proposal for a decision of the
European Parliament and of the Council establishing a Commu-
nity action programme to promote activities in the field of the
protection of the Community’s financial interests (1),

Having regard to the Council’s request for an opinion on this pro-
posal, received at the Court on 6 August 2003,

Whereas the decision proposed is based on Article 280(4) of the
Treaty, pursuant to which the Council, after consulting the Court
of Auditors, adopts the necessary measures in the fields of the
prevention of and fight against fraud affecting the financial inter-
est of the Community,

HAS ADOPTED THE FOLLOWING OPINION:

THE PROGRAMME PROPOSED

3.
Article 27(3) of the Financial Regulation provides that
‘specific, measurable, achievable, relevant and timed objectives’
shall be set for all the sectors of activity covered by the budget.
The proposed ‘Hercule’ programme does not fully comply with
these provisions, as its objectives are rather indefinite and only
refer to activities of a general nature, like ‘organisation of seminars
and conferences’, ‘promotion of scientific studies and discussions’,
‘coordination of activities’, ‘training and awareness’, ‘dissemina-
tion of scientific information’, ‘technical assistance’, etc. Some-
times the objectives are somewhat contradictory, as when they
are defined as ‘aligning the substance of activities so as to ensure
effective and equivalent levels of protection on the basis of mutu-
ally agreed best practice while also respecting the distinct tradi-
tions of each Member State’.

Article 7 (Monitoring and evaluation) of the draft decision
4.
states that ‘by 31 December 2009 at the latest, the Commission
shall report to the European Parliament and to the Council on the
achievement of the objectives of this programme. The report shall
be based on the results obtained by the beneficiaries and assess,
in particular, their effectiveness in achieving the objectives defined
in Article 1 and the Annex’. Clear, technically well-defined and
measurable objectives would facilitate a serious, factual and use-
ful evaluation of achievements.

The Court welcomes the Commission proposal as an ini-
1.
tiative in favour of the protection of the Community’s financial
interests. The Court also appreciates that a specific ‘basic instru-
ment’ is proposed for this initiative. The Court considers, how-
ever, that the Commission proposal could be improved as sug-
gested hereafter.

5.
Furthermore, a report only after the end of the pro-
gramme, when the whole of the expenditure has been made, does
not seem appropriate. Information on the achievements and
results obtained should be presented regularly, e.g. with the annual
grants programmes and calls for proposals.

2.
The Decision proposed should clearly state which needs
the programme, called ‘Hercule’, should satisfy that are not yet

(1) COM(2003) 278 final of 27 May 2003.

(2)

In particular, the ‘Overall strategic approach’ for the protection of the
Communities’ financial interests and the fight against fraud for the
period 2001 to 2005, adopted on 28 June 2000 (COM(2000) 358
final of 28 June 2000) and the ‘action plans’ implementing the
approach, which include various activities already carried out by the
Advisory Committee for the Coordination of Fraud Prevention (gener-
ally known as Cocolaf) and the European Anti-fraud Office (OLAF).

C 318/6

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

30.12.2003

FINANCIAL ASPECTS

6.
It appears from the fourth recital of the proposal and the
annexed ‘legislative financial statement’ that the Commission
intends to use around 2,0 million euro of the total allocation of
around 21,5 million euro to support ‘conferences, congresses and
meetings in connection with the activities of the associations of
European lawyers for the protection of the financial interests of
the Community’. It is important that the money be used in the
most efficient way. Therefore, the calls for proposals should be

carried out according to the principle of a fair competition among
all technically qualified authorities and bodies.

7.
According to the ‘legislative financial statement’, the above-
mentioned amount of around 2,0 million euro, spread over the
five years of the duration of the programme, should be entered in
a specific budget article (24 02 04) and the rest of the annual allo-
cation in another budget article (24 02 05). In accordance with
the budgetary principles of specification and transparency (1), the
appropriations relative to the ‘Hercule’ programme should be
entered in a single budget article, as has been done for the ‘Pericles’
programme. This article could be subdivided into items corre-
sponding to specific activities to be carried out within the frame-
work of the programme, if such activities are clearly identified
and described in the decision setting up the programme.

This opinion was adopted by the Court of Auditors in Luxembourg on 11 November 2003.

For the Court of Auditors

Juan Manuel FABRA VALLÉS

President

(1) Articles 21, 29 and 41 of the Financial Regulation of 25 June 2002
(Council Regulation (EC) No 1605/2002 (OJ L 248, 16.9.2002)).