Special Report No 19/2013 ‘2012 report on the follow-up of the European Court of Auditors’ special reports’
Date: 2014-03-06
Institutions: European Court of Auditors
Subjects: European Commission, European Court of Auditors, audit, budgetary control, recommendation (EU)

EUROPEAN
COURT OF AUDITORS

4
3
8
0
-
1
3
8
1
N
S
S

I

3
1
0
2

9
1
o
N
t
r
o
p
e
R

l

a
i
c
e
p
S

2012 REPORT ON THE FOLLOW-UP OF 
THE EUROPEAN COURT OF AUDITORS’ 
SPECIAL REPORTS

EN

 
 
 
 
Special Report No 19 

 2013

2012 REPORT ON THE FOLLOW-UP OF 
THE EUROPEAN COURT OF AUDITORS’ 
SPECIAL REPORTS 

(pursuant to Article 287(4), second subparagraph, TFEU)

EUROPEAN COURT OF AUDITORS

EUROPEAN COURT OF AUDITORS
12, rue Alcide De Gasperi
1615 Luxembourg
LUXEMBOURG

Tel. +352 4398-1
Fax +352 4398-46410
E-mail: eca-info@eca.europa.eu
Internet: http://eca.europa.eu

Special Reports No 19 

 2013

A great deal of additional information on the European Union is available on the Internet.
It can be accessed through the Europa server (http://europa.eu).

Cataloguing data can be found at the end of this publication.
Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union, 2014

ISBN 978-92-9241-612-6
doi:10.2865/22257

© European Union, 2014
Reproduction is authorised provided the source is acknowledged.

Printed in Luxembourg

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Paragraph

ABBREVIATIONS

I–VII 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1–3 

4–8 

INTRODUCTION

SCOPE AND APPROACH

9–17 

THE COMMISSION’S IMPLEMENTATION OF 62 RECOMMENDATIONS 

9–10 

11–12 

13–17 

INTRODUCTION

 THE COMMISSION ADEQUATELY FOLLOWS UP AND IMPLEMENTS A LARGE MAJORITY  
OF THE COURT’S RECOMMENDATIONS

 EXAMPLES OF IMPROVEMENTS AND AREAS OF IMPROVEMENT IN FINANCIAL 
MANAGEMENT

18–28 

REVIEW OF THE COMMISSION’S FOLLOW‑UP PROCEDURES

21–23 

24–28 

 THE COMMISSION HAS ESTABLISHED PROPER GUIDELINES AND PROCEDURES  
RELATING TO ITS FOLLOW‑UP ACTIVITIES

 RAD DOES NOT ENSURE THAT THE COMMISSION HAS ADEQUATE AND RELIABLE 
MANAGEMENT INFORMATION CONCERNING THE IMPLEMENTATION STATUS OF 
RECOMMENDATIONS WHICH HAVE ONLY BEEN PARTIALLY IMPLEMENTED

29–32 

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

3

2012 REPORT ON THE FOLLOW-UP OF THE EUROPEAN COURT OF AUDITORS’ SPECIAL REPORTS  
ANNEX I  —  OVERVIEW OF RECOMMENDATIONS REVIEWED BY THE COURT

ANNEX II  — 

 AGRICULTURE: SUPPORT FOR FRUIT AND VEGETABLE PRODUCERS’ 
OPERATIONAL PROGRAMMES

ANNEX III  —  AGRICULTURE: FOOD AID FOR DEPRIVED PERSONS

ANNEX IV  —  AGRICULTURE: IMPLEMENTATION OF THE LEADER APPROACH

ANNEX V  —  COHESION: SOLIDARITY FUND

ANNEX VI  —  COHESION: VOCATIONAL TRAINING FOR WOMEN

ANNEX VII  —  EXTERNAL ACTIONS: REHABILITATION

ANNEX VIII  —  EXTERNAL ACTIONS: EDF SUPPORT

ANNEX IX  —  EXTERNAL ACTIONS: BANKING MEASURES

ANNEX X  —  REVENUES: TREASURY MANAGEMENT

ANNEX XI  —  RESEARCH: RTD FRAMEWORK PROGRAMMES

REPLY OF THE COMMISSION

4

2012 REPORT ON THE FOLLOW-UP OF THE EUROPEAN COURT OF AUDITORS’ SPECIAL REPORTS  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
ABBREVIATIONS

ECA: European Court of Auditors

EDF: European Development Fund

ESF: European Social Fund

EUSF: European Union Solidarity Fund

FP: Framework Programme

HQ: Headquarters

IT: Information Technology

LAG: Local Action Group

MDP: Most Deprived Person

MEDA: Mesures D’Accompagnement: Financial instrument of the Euro-Mediterranean partnership

OP: Operational Programme

PO: Producer Organisation

QSG: Quality Support Group

RAD: Recommendations, Actions, Discharge

SMART: Specific Measurable Achievable Relevant Timely

SR: Special Report

5

2012 REPORT ON THE FOLLOW-UP OF THE EUROPEAN COURT OF AUDITORS’ SPECIAL REPORTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

I.
This report presents the results of the Court’s second review of the Commission’s follow-up 
of recommendations made by the Court in previous special reports.

II.
The overall question of this review was: does the Commission adequately follow up audit 
recommendations made by the Court in its special reports? This was broken down into 
two sub-questions: has the Commission established proper guidelines and procedures for 
follow-up activities, and has the Commission adequate and reliable management information 
on audit recommendations and their state of implementation?

III.
The Court’s review included an examination of the Commission’s follow-up of a sample of 62 
recommendations from 10 special reports (SRs) of the Court from the period 2006–10. For 
this sample the Court assessed the current implementation status of the recommendations 
and  the  Commission’s  own  management  information  concerning  the  status  of  these 
recommendations. The Court also reviewed relevant procedures of the directorates- general 
(DGs) and carried out a review of manuals, guidelines, plans and published reports, with 
particular focus on those relating to the RAD application (recommendation, action, discharge). 
RAD is an IT tool used by the Commission to monitor its follow-up of audit recommendations 
by the Court and requests made by the discharge authority in the framework of the discharge 
procedure.

IV.
On the basis of its review the Court concludes that the Commission adequately follows up 
the Court’s recommendations. The review of a sample of recommendations thus showed 
that the Commission has implemented 83 % of the Court’s recommendations, either fully 
or in most respects, which has contributed towards improving financial management in 
a number of areas of the EU budget.

V.
The Court also concludes that the Commission has proper guidelines and procedures in 
place concerning its follow-up activities.

VI.
Finally,  the  Cour t ’s  review  shows  that  the  IT  application  RAD  contains  management 
information on audit recommendations issued by the Court in special reports published 
from 2008. However, the Court concludes that RAD does not ensure that the Commission has 
adequate and reliable management information concerning the implementation status of 
recommendations which have only been partially implemented. This is due to the absolute 
nature of the categories used by the Commission to record the implementation status of 
recommendations.

VII.
The Court therefore recommends that the Commission refine the RAD application to better 
reflect recommendations that have only been partially implemented.

6

2012 REPORT ON THE FOLLOW-UP OF THE EUROPEAN COURT OF AUDITORS’ SPECIAL REPORTS 3. 

The current report presents the results of the 
Cour t ’s  second  review  of  the  Commission’s 
follow-up of recommendations made by the 
Court in previous special reports.

INTRODUCTION

1. 

2. 

A c c o r d i n g   t o   i n t e r n a t i o n a l   a u d i t i n g 
standards,  the  follow-up  of  audit  repor ts 
is  the  final  stage  in  the  per formance  audit 
cycle of planning, execution and follow-up 1. 
Following  up  the  Court’s  performance  audit 
repor ts  is  a  necessar y  element  in  the  cycle 
o f   a c c o u n t a b i l i t y   a n d   h e l p s   e n c o u r a g e 
t h e   e f f e c t i v e   i m p l e m e n t a t i o n   o f   r e p o r t 
recommendations by the Commission.

The Court issued its first follow-up report in 
2012 (SR No 19/2012). In this report the Court 
obser ved  that  the  follow-up  of  the  Cour t ’s 
audit  recommendations  by  the  Commission 
needed to be strengthened.

1 

International Auditing Standards of Supreme Audit 

Institutions, ISSAI 3000 and 3100.

7

2012 REPORT ON THE FOLLOW-UP OF THE EUROPEAN COURT OF AUDITORS’ SPECIAL REPORTS SCOPE AND APPROACH

4. 

The Court’s current review of the Commission’s 
follow-up  of  audit  recommendations  builds 
upon a system review carried out in 2011 by the 
Commission’s Internal Audit Capabilities (IACs). 
The IACs’ review concluded that the internal 
control system in place in the respective DGs 
provided  reasonable  assurance  regarding 
t h e   a c h i e v e m e n t   o f   t h e   i m p l e m e n t a t i o n 
of  recommendations  issued  by  the  Cour t. 
However,  IACs  also  identified  issues  which 
needed  to  be  addressed  and  recommended 
e n h a n c e m e n t s   i n   t h e   f u n c t i o n a l i t i e s   a n d 
reporting facilities of RAD.

5. 

The overall question of this review is:

does the Commission adequately follow up 
audit recommendations made by the Court 
in its special reports?

This  question  was  brok en  down  into  t wo 
sub-questions:

 ο has the Commission established proper guide-
lines and procedures for follow-up activities; and

 ο has the Commission adequate and reliable man-
agement information on audit recommenda-
tions and their state of implementation?

I n   o rd e r   to   re p l y   to   t h e s e   q u e s t i o n s   t h e 
Court  assessed  during  the  period  1  Januar y 
t o   3 1  M a r c h  2 0 1 3   a  s a m p l e   o f   6 2   a u d i t 
recommendations  from  10  special  repor ts 
published by the Court in the period 2006–10, 
to determine whether these recommendations 
had been followed up by the Commission. The 
sample was selected from reports which were 
published at least 2 years ago and for which 
the  recommendations  were  still  rele vant. 
Th e   s a m p l e   w a s   f u r t h e r   u s e d   to   te s t   t h e 
adequacy and reliability of the Commission’s 
management  information  concerning  these 
recommendations. The special reports included 
are presented in Table 1.

6. 

7.  When  assessing  the  implementation  status 
o f   re c o m m e n d a t i o n s,   t h e   Co u r t   u s e s   t h e 
fo l l ow i n g   c a te g o r i e s :   f u l l y   i m p l e m e n te d, 
met in most respects, met in some respects, 
n o t   i m p l e m e n t e d,   n o   l o n g e r   re l e v a n t   o r 
could  not  be  verified. The  Court  considered 
a recommendation to be fully implemented if 
the Commission had taken all reasonable and 
propor tionate  corrective  actions  within  its 
competence and no material issues remained 
to  be  addressed. The  implementation  status 
w a s   c o n f i r m e d   by   w ay   o f   i n te r v i e w s   a n d 
supporting documentation from the relevant 
DGs but did not include information at the level 
of the Member States or beneficiary countries. 
While the purpose of the review is to determine 
what  actions  the  Commission  has  taken  in 
response  to  the  Cour t ’s  recommendations, 
no assessment is made of the effects of these 
actions as this would require separate in- depth 
follow-up audits in the relevant areas.

8. 

Fur thermore  the  Cour t  examined  relevant 
procedures of the DGs2 and carried out a review 
of  manuals,  guidelines,  plans  and  published 
reports. The review focused especially on the 
Commission’s IT application RAD, which is used 
to record and monitor information relating to 
follow-up actions taken by the Commission.

2  The procedures reviewed related to DG Budget and the 
five largest DGs (DG Agriculture and Rural Development, DG 
Regional Policy, DG Employment, Social Affairs and Inclusion, 
DG Development and Cooperation — EuropeAid and DG 
Research and Innovation) to which most of the Court’s 
recommendations are addressed.

8

2012 REPORT ON THE FOLLOW-UP OF THE EUROPEAN COURT OF AUDITORS’ SPECIAL REPORTS  
 
TABLE 1

SPECIAL REPORTS FOLLOWED UP IN THIS REPORT

Special report1

Budgetary area

Number of audit 
recommendations 
analysed2

SR No 8/2006
Growing success? The effectiveness of the European Union support for 
fruit and vegetable producers’ operational programmes

SR No 6/2009
European Union food aid for deprived persons: an assessment of the 
objectives, the means and the methods employed

SR No 5/2010
Implementation of the Leader approach for rural development

SR No 3/2008
The European Union Solidarity Fund: how rapid, efficient and flexible is it?

SR No 17/2009
Vocational training actions for women co‑financed by the ESF

SR No 6/2008
European Commission rehabilitation after the tsunami and hurricane 
Mitch

SR No 18/2009
Effectiveness of EDF support for regional economic integration in east 
Africa and west Africa

SR No 1/2009
Banking measures in the Mediterranean area in the context of the MEDA 
programme and the previous protocols

SR No 5/2009
The Commission’s treasury management

SR No 9/2007
Evaluating the EU research and technological development (RTD) frame‑
work programmes — could the Commission’s approach be improved?

Total number of recommendations

Agriculture

Agriculture

Agriculture

EUSF

Cohesion 

External actions

External actions

External actions

Revenues

Research

9

8

6

2

3

6

11

5

7

5

62

1  All special reports of the Court are available at: http://eca.europa.eu

2  Where necessary, the sub-parts of the published recommendations are numbered as separate recommendations in this report, in order 
to properly analyse and report on the actions taken by the Commission (see Annex I).

9

2012 REPORT ON THE FOLLOW-UP OF THE EUROPEAN COURT OF AUDITORS’ SPECIAL REPORTS THE COMMISSION’S IMPLEMENTATION 
OF 62 RECOMMENDATIONS

INTRODUCTION

9. 

T h e   C o m m i s s i o n   f o l l o w s   u p   t h e   a u d i t 
recommendations of the Court and requests 
made  by  the  European  Parliament  and  the 
C o u n c i l   ( i . e .   t h e   d i s c h a r g e   a u t h o r i t y   fo r 
the  European  budget).  In  accordance  with 
Article 166(2) of the financial regulation, the 
Commission prepares an annual report on the 
above  requests  within  the  framework  of  the 
discharge procedure for the EU budget.

10.  This section presents the results of the Court’s 
review  of  the  Commission’s  implementation 
of  a sample  of  62  recommendations  from 
10 special reports issued by the Court in the 
period 2006–10. The processing of requests of 
the Council and Parliament was not assessed 
as  par t  of  this  exercise.  Annex  I shows  an 
overview of each of the 62 recommendations 
assessed  by  the  Court,  while  the  Annexes II 
to XI provide a brief summary of the relevant 
audits, the recommendations, the subsequent 
follow-up  actions  taken  by  the  Commission 
and any issues which remain to be addressed.

THE COMMISSION ADEQUATELY 
FOLLOWS UP AND IMPLEMENTS 
A LARGE MAJORITY OF THE COURT’S 
RECOMMENDATIONS

11.  Of the 62 recommendations examined by the 
Cour t,  the  follow-up  actions  per taining  to 
three of the selected recommendations could 
not  be  verified,  as  the  necessar y  evidence 
was only available at the level of beneficiary 
countries, which was outside the scope of the 
review (see paragraph 7). The Commission did 
not  implement  three  recommendations  (all 
of  which  related  to  the  audit  of  food  aid  — 
Annex  III).  Two  fur ther  recommendations 
were initially rejected but were subsequently 
fully implemented (a recommendation related 
to  food  aid —  Annex III )  or  implemented  in 
most respects (a recommendation related to 
treasury management —  Annex X).

12.  O f   t h e   5 9   re c o m m e n d a t i o n s   w h i c h   c o u l d 
b e   a s s e s s e d ,   t h e   C o u r t   f o u n d   t h a t   4 9 
recommendations (83 %) had been either fully 
implemented or implemented in most respects, 
and  a further  seven  recommendations  (12  %) 
had been implemented in some respects while 
three (5 %) had not been implemented.

10

2012 REPORT ON THE FOLLOW-UP OF THE EUROPEAN COURT OF AUDITORS’ SPECIAL REPORTS EXAMPLES OF IMPROVEMENTS 
AND AREAS FOR IMPROVEMENT IN 
FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT

13.  S i m p l i f i c at i o n   o f   a i d   p ro g ra m m e s   a n d 
clarification of grant‑aid procedures such 
as eligibility criteria were noted in the EU fruit 
and vegetable aid programme (agriculture) and 
also concerning the European Union Solidarity 
Fund. In the case of the latter, improvements 
in the quality of applications led to a reduction 
in  the  number  of  applications  for  which  the 
Commission  needed  to  request  additional 
information.  I mproved  guidance  from  the 
Commission to the Member States on project 
selec tion  procedures  and  the  inclusion  of 
mandatory performance indicators were also in 
evidence in European Social Fund co-financed 
vocational  training  programmes  (cohesion). 
Similarly,  better  procedures  for  considering 
project sustainability at application stage were 
introduced following the Indian Ocean tsunami 
audit (external actions). Such improvements 
can  lead  to  better-targeted  and  thus  more 
effective and efficiently delivered aid.

14.  The  monitoring of implementation and the 
evaluation of the results of EU programmes 
and  ac tions  require  reliable  per for mance 
information. Improvements in this regard were 
noted in a number of areas reviewed. Firstly, 
while  the  draft  Cohesion  Fund  regulations 
for the programming period 2014–20 remain 
f u n d a m e n t a l l y   i n p u t   b a s e d,   t h e y   c o n t a i n 
p ro v i s i o n s   fo r   a  s t ro n g e r   re s u l t - o r i e n te d 
approach  including  indicators  for  output 
and  expected  results  (cohesion).  Secondly, 
regarding  the  EU  fruit  and  vegetable  aid 
programme,  data  collection  from  Member 
States  has  improved  with  the  help  of  new 
g u i d e l i n e s ,   t e m p l a t e s   a n d   I T   s o f t w a r e 
from  the  Commission  (agriculture).  Finally, 
improvements were also noted in reporting, 
monitor ing  and  communication  by  those 
delivering the rehabilitation programme after 
the Indian Ocean tsunami (external actions).

15.  However,  there  is  a need  to  ensure  better 
targeting  of  the  aid  schemes  by  including 
SMART3 objectives and better performance 
indicators within programmes (agriculture). 
There is also a n eed to improve the provision 
of  comparative  cost  infor mation  to  those 
responsible for implementation and monitoring 
(external actions). These improvements would 
facilitate increased accountability by Member 
States and beneficiaries for the EU funding.

16. 

I m p r o v e d   c o o r d i n a t i o n   a n d   c a p a c i t y 
building among stakeholders are important 
e l e m e n t s   i n   e n s u r i n g   t h e   e f f i c i e n c y   a n d 
effectiveness  of  EU  expenditure.  As  regards 
European Development Fund (EDF) support, 
increased  effor ts  towards  African  regional 
integration with the support of the Commission 
w e r e   n o t e d .   T h e s e   i n c l u d e d   i m p r o v e d 
coordination between the regional bodies and 
exchange of guidance between Commission 
headquarters  and  the  EU  delegations  in  the 
partner  countries.  Arrangements  for  greater 
c o o r d i n a t i o n   b e t w e e n   t h e   C o m m i s s i o n 
and  other  funding  stakeholders  such  as  the 
European Investment Bank and the European 
Bank  for  Reconstruction  and  Development 
were also introduced (external actions).

17.  Finally,  the  increased  institutional  capacity 
noted in the area of banking measures in the 
Mediterranean area, through the establishment 
o f   s p e c i a l i s t   u n i t s   i n   t h e   C o m m i s s i o n 
(EuropeAid),  should  assist  the  promotion 
a n d   m a n a g e m e n t   o f   i n n ov a t i ve   f i n a n c i a l 
instruments (external actions).

3  Specific, measureable, achievable, relevant and timely.

11

2012 REPORT ON THE FOLLOW-UP OF THE EUROPEAN COURT OF AUDITORS’ SPECIAL REPORTS REVIEW OF THE COMMISSION’S FOLLOW-UP 
PROCEDURES

18.  D G   B u d g e t   o f   t h e   C o m m i s s i o n   m o n i t o r s 
and  coordinates  the  follow-up  process.  For 
this  purpose  an  IT  application  called  RAD 
is  used  collec tively  by  the  DGs  to  record 
management information pertaining to audit 
recommendations and discharge requests. RAD 
contains the Commission’s official response to 
these and the status of the follow-up actions 
taken by the individual DGs, which have the 
primary responsibility for their implementation.

19.  The RAD application, developed in 2003, was 
designed  as  an  IT  tool  to  follow  up  annual 
repor t  recommendations  by  the  Cour t  and 
requests made by the discharge authority in 
the framework of the discharge procedure. As 
from  2008,  the  use  of  RAD  was  extended  to 
include recommendations issued by the Court 
in special reports. RAD is an important element 
in the Commission’s follow-up system, both as 
a  management information tool, allowing DG 
Budget and the individual DGs to monitor the 
actions taken to follow up recommendations 
and requests, and as a key source of information 
in the preparation of the annual report to the 
discharge authority4.

20.  DG Informatics is the system provider of RAD, 
while DG Budget is the system owner and the 
final validator of the information recorded in 
the application.

4 

‘RAD: file-discharge follow-up scope’ lists the objectives 

of RAD as being: to create an application for the input of 
recommendations and the creation and following up of action 
plans, and to meet the follow-up requirement for reporting to 
the European Parliament, the Council and the Court of Auditors, 
not only yearly but until the recommendations are closed 
completed or cancelled.

THE COMMISSION HAS ESTABLISHED 
PROPER GUIDELINES AND 
PROCEDURES RELATING TO ITS 
FOLLOW‑UP ACTIVITIES

21.  T h e   C o u r t   r e v i e w e d   t h e   C o m m i s s i o n’s 
g u i d e l i n e s   a n d   p r o c e d u r e s   r e l a t i n g   t o 
follow-up  ac tivities.  The  Cour t  noted  that 
following  the  obser vations  of  the  IACs  and 
those  of  the  Cour t ’s  first  follow-up  repor t 5, 
the  Commission  has  taken  significant  steps 
to  strengthen  its  guidelines  and  procedures 
relating to follow-up activities. This includes 
improved  documentation  of  procedures  in 
place  and  the  adoption  of  new  guidelines 
fo r   p l a n n i n g,   e xe c u t i n g,   m o n i t o r i n g   a n d 
reporting on follow‑up activities; prioritising 
t h e   f o l l o w-u p   o f   ‘ v e r y   i m p o r t a n t ’  a n d 
‘critical’ recommendations/requests; and the 
requirement that DGs report at least annually 
on  the  progress  achieved  in  implementing 
recommendations and requests.

22.  As  part  of  an  action  plan  established  by  DG 
Budget, ‘RAD actions 2013’, the user manual for 
RAD has been updated. Furthermore, actions 
such as training courses, reports on timeliness, 
better  search  functions  and  the  correction 
of ‘bugs’  in  the  RAD  application  have  been 
initiated.

23.  The  Court’s  review  showed  that  procedures 
within  the  RAD  application  and  links  to  the 
responsible units in the DGs are in place and 
are adequately documented. This ensures an 
audit trail of all recommendations entered in 
the application, including the update of their 
implementation status. The review also showed 
that  DG  Budget  has  established  procedures 
which ensure a clear segregation of duties in 
order  to  safeguard  the  integrity  of  the  data 
recorded in RAD.

5  Special Report No 19/2012 (http://eca.europa.eu).

12

2012 REPORT ON THE FOLLOW-UP OF THE EUROPEAN COURT OF AUDITORS’ SPECIAL REPORTS RAD DOES NOT ENSURE THAT THE 
COMMISSION HAS ADEQUATE 
AND RELIABLE MANAGEMENT 
INFORMATION CONCERNING 
THE IMPLEMENTATION STATUS 
OF RECOMMENDATIONS WHICH 
HAVE ONLY BEEN PARTIALLY 
IMPLEMENTED

27.  This  discrepancy  between  the  Commission’s 
recording and the Court’s assessment, noted 
in  relation  to  18  recommendations,  concern 
i n s t a n c e s   w h e re   t h e   Co m m i s s i o n   c a r r i e d 
out  only  a par tial  implementation.  As  the 
categories  used  in  RAD  do  not  facilitate  the 
recording  of  a  partial  implementation,  such 
recommendations are recorded as ‘done’.

28.  The  Court  notes  that  the  absolute  nature  of 
the  categories  applied  by  the  Commission 
t o   r e c o r d   t h e   i m p l e m e n t a t i o n   s t a t u s   o f 
recommendations  has  a negative  impact  on 
the adequacy and reliability of the information 
provided concerning audit recommendations 
which have only been partially implemented.

24.  The Court reviewed the adequacy and reliability 
of the information available in RAD pertaining 
to the 62 recommendations reviewed.

25.  For each audit recommendation and request, 
RAD stores key data including the priority of 
the  recommendation/request  (critical,  ver y 
important, important or desirable), its status of 
implementation (rejected, accepted, cancelled 
or done), its completion date (expected and 
actual date) and the full official response of the 
Commission. According to Commission rules, 
its response to the Court’s recommendations 
must  fulfil  cer tain  specific  criteria,  and  in 
par ticular,  the  response  must  clearly  state 
which practical measures the Commission has 
in mind to correct the weaknesses identified6.

26.  Of  the  62  recommendations  included  in  the 
Cour t ’s  sample,  46  recommendations  were 
entered  in  RAD.  The  16  recommendations 
which  were  not  recorded  in  RAD  all  related 
to  special  repor ts  issued  before  2008  (see 
paragraph  20).  The  official  response  of  the 
Co m m i s s i o n   h a d   b e e n   d u l y   re c o rd e d   fo r 
all  46  recommendations  included  in  RAD.  
38 of the 46 recommendations were recorded 
as ‘done’  by  the  Commission.  However,  the 
Court’s analysis of supporting documentation 
in  the  DGs  showed  that  only  20  of  these 
recommendations could be considered as fully 
implemented.

6  http://intracomm.ec.testa.eu/budg/rep/external/proced_
en.html

13

2012 REPORT ON THE FOLLOW-UP OF THE EUROPEAN COURT OF AUDITORS’ SPECIAL REPORTS CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

32.  The Court’s review shows that the IT application, 
RAD,  contains  management  information  on 
audit recommendations issued by the Court in 
special reports published from 2008. However, 
the Court concludes that RAD does not ensure 
that the Commission has adequate and reliable 
m a n a g e m e n t   i n fo r m a t i o n   c o n c e r n i n g   t h e 
implementation  status  of  recommendations 
which have only been partially implemented. 
Th i s   i s   d u e   to   t h e   a b s o l u te   n a t u re   o f   t h e 
categories used by the Commission to record 
the implementation status of recommendations 
(see paragraphs 24 to 28).

29.  B a s e d   o n   i t s   re v i e w   o f   t h e   Co m m i s s i o n’s 
fo l l o w-u p   o f   r e c o m m e n d a t i o n s   m a d e   i n 
special reports, the Court concludes that the 
Commission adequately follows up the Court’s 
recommendations.

30.  T h e   C o u r t ’s   r e v i e w   o f   t h e   C o m m i s s i o n’s 
follow-up  of  62 recommendations  from  the 
Cour t ’s  special  repor ts  thus  shows  that  the 
Commission  has  implemented  49  (83 %)  of 
the Court’s recommendations, either fully or 
in most respects, and that this has contributed 
towards  improving  financial  management 
in  a number  of  areas  of  the  EU  budget  (see 
paragraphs 9 to 17). (See Annexes II to XI.)

31.  The Court’s review of guidelines and procedures 
r e l a t i n g   t o   t h e   C o m m i s s i o n’s   f o l l o w-u p 
activities showed that proper guidelines and 
procedures  had  generally  been  established 
(see paragraphs 21 to 23).

The Commission should refine the RAD application to better reflect recommendations that have only 
been partially implemented.

RECOMMENDATION

This Report was adopted by Chamber CEAD, headed by Mr Igors LUDBORŽS, Member of the Court of 
Auditors, in Luxembourg at its meeting of 17 December 2013.

For the Court of Auditors

Vítor Manuel da SILVA CALDEIRA
President

14

2012 REPORT ON THE FOLLOW-UP OF THE EUROPEAN COURT OF AUDITORS’ SPECIAL REPORTS ANNEX I

OVERVIEW OF RECOMMENDATIONS REVIEWED BY THE COURT

Special report

Recommendation

Paragraph

Fully 
implemented

Implemented

in most 
respects

in some 
respects

Not 
implemented

No 
longer 
relevant

Could not 
be verified

SR 8/2006
Growing success? The 
effectiveness of the European 
Union support for fruit 
and vegetable producers’ 
operational programmes 
(Annex II)

SR 6/2009
European Union food aid 
for deprived persons: an 
assessment of the objectives, 
the means and the methods 
employed (Annex III)

SR 5/2010
Implementation of the 
Leader approach for rural 
development (Annex IV)

SR 3/2008
The European Union Solidarity 
Fund: how rapid, efficient and 
flexible is it? (Annex V)

SR 17/2009
Vocational training actions for 
women co-financed by the ESF
(Annex VI)

SR 6/2008
European Commission 
rehabilitation after the 
tsunami and hurricane Mitch 
(Annex VII)

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

1

2

3

4

5

6

7A

7B

1

2

3

4

5

6

1

2

1

2

3

1

2

3

4

5

6

94

95 (i)

95 (ii)

95 (iii)

96

97

98

99

100

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

7

1

2

3

4

5

6

46

47

50 (a)

50 (b)

53

1

2

3

4

5

6

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

15

2012 REPORT ON THE FOLLOW-UP OF THE EUROPEAN COURT OF AUDITORS’ SPECIAL REPORTS ANNEX I

OVERVIEW OF RECOMMENDATIONS REVIEWED BY THE COURT

Special report

Recommendation

Paragraph

Fully 
implemented

Implemented

in most 
respects

in some 
respects

Not 
implemented

No 
longer 
relevant

Could not 
be verified

x

x

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

1

2

3

4

5

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

1

2

3

4.1

4.2

4.3

4.4

5.1

5.2

6.1

6.2

45 (a)

45 (b)

45 (c)

46

49

43, 1.1

43, 1.2

47, 2.1

47, 2.2

47, 2.3

47, 2.4

19

V (i)

V (ii)

V (iii)

V (iv)

V (v)

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

SR 18/2009
Effectiveness of EDF support 
for regional economic integra-
tion in east Africa and west 
Africa (Annex VIII)

SR 1/2009
Banking measures in the Medi-
terranean area in the context 
of the MEDA programme and 
the previous protocols 
(Annex IX)

SR 5/2009
The Commission’s treasury 
management (Annex X)

SR 9/2007
Evaluating the EU research 
and technological devel-
opment (RTD) framework 
programmes — could the 
Commission’s approach be 
improved? (Annex XI)

TOTAL

62

35

14

7

3

0

3

16

2012 REPORT ON THE FOLLOW-UP OF THE EUROPEAN COURT OF AUDITORS’ SPECIAL REPORTS ANNEX II

AGRICULTURE: SUPPORT FOR FRUIT AND VEGETABLE 
PRODUCERS' OPERATIONAL PROGRAMMES

(4) 

(5) 

aligning the scheme’s procedures and rules for the 
eligibility of expenditure with those of the rural de-
velopment investment measures;

improving its data collection on operational pro-
grammes and producer organisations, focusing on 
a few key indicators;

(6)  obtaining a better understanding of the reasons for 
the lack of progress in the concentration of supply in 
producer organisations;

(7)  better targeting the policy to achieve the overall ob-

jectives of concentration and adaptation;

(8)  questioning whether the benefits of concentration of 
supply achieved by the policy are sufficient to com-
pensate for the inequality caused by limiting the aid 
to producer organisations; and

(9) 

reconsidering the mechanism for supporting the EU’s 
fruit and vegetable growers.

The implementation of the Court’s 
recommendations

5.
Of the nine Court recommendations, eight were fully 
implemented (Nos 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9) and one 
(No 2) was met in most respects.

1.
Special Report No 8/2006 concerned the effective‑
ness of the EU support for fruit and vegetable pro‑
ducers’ operational programmes.

2.
‘Since  1996,  the  EU  has  offered  aid  for  50 %  of  the 
costs of measures taken by fruit and vegetable grow-
ers which aim, inter alia, to improve product quality, 
reduce production costs and improve environmental 
practices. The aid is only available to groups of grow-
ers that collectively market their produce in producer 
organisations (POs). Member States are responsible 
for approving the operational programmes (OPs) of 
measures proposed by the producer organisations, 
and for paying the aid. In 2004, the aid amounted to 
500 million euros.’

(Source: Information note ECA/06/21)

3.
The Court audited the effectiveness of this aid scheme 
based primarily on a random sample of 104 measures 
from 30 completed operational programmes in eight 
Member States, on an assessment of Member State 
and Commission procedures and on a review of Com-
mission data.

The Court’s recommendations

4.
The Court recommended that the Commission should 
make  the  aid  scheme  for  operational  programmes 
simpler and more effective by:

(1)  bringing forward new proposals based on evaluation 

results;

(2) 

(3) 

clarifying the criteria for eligible expenditure and re-
moving the programming requirements;

reviewing the objectives set for operational pro-
grammes and the eligibility lists;

17

2012 REPORT ON THE FOLLOW-UP OF THE EUROPEAN COURT OF AUDITORS’ SPECIAL REPORTS ANNEX II

The main points from the Court’s follow‑up

ENHANCED PROGRAMMING, MONITORING AND EVALUATION

MAKING THE AID SCHEME SIMPLER AND MORE EFFECTIVE

6.
The main improvements included the simplification 
of the aid scheme through the following actions:

(1)  multiple implementing regulations have been re-

placed by a single one;

(2)  processing aid has been abolished;

(3) 

all the support is targeted at producer organisations 
of fresh product or fresh product intended for pro-
cessing;

(4) 

inclusion of the areas of the fruit and vegetable sector 
in the Single Payment Scheme; and

(5)  more  effective  aid  scheme  for  operational  pro-
grammes, through a higher concentration of supply 
from the POs.

7.
In  approving  an  OP  reference  is  now  made  to  the 
national strategy and measures to address overcom-
pensations. The  Commission  has  also  clarified  the 
eligibility criteria for expenditure under operational 
programmes.

8.
Nevertheless, although the average rate of partici-
pation  in  producer  organisations  shows  constant 
growth, with a rate of 43  % in 2010 (EU-27), it is still 
below the objective of 60 % established by the com-
mon market organisation in the 2007 reform.

9.
The Commission has introduced new instruments to 
make the aid more attractive:

(1)  producer groups have been successful in the EU new 

Member States, particularly in Poland;

(2) 

the new crisis prevention and management measures 
(green harvesting and no harvesting) proved efficient 
during the E. coli crisis in 2011;

(3)  harvesting insurance is growing as a valuable tool to 

prevent income losses;

(4) 

the rate of organisation (i.e. percentage of supply dealt 
with by POs) in the EU has increased by 10 % since 
2007.

10.
The Commission has maintained consistency in the 
rural development operational programmes by en-
suring that Member States allocate resources in an 
effective way among sectors and priorities.

11.
The  Commission  also  developed  guidelines,  tem-
plates and IT software to collect data to monitor the 
effectiveness of the aid scheme and used the 2008 
evaluation results and subsequent studies to estab-
lish that the support for POs generates real gains in 
terms of strengthening the bargaining power of farm-
ers. However, there is still room for improvement in 
making membership of producer organisations more 
attractive.

18

2012 REPORT ON THE FOLLOW-UP OF THE EUROPEAN COURT OF AUDITORS’ SPECIAL REPORTS ANNEX III

AGRICULTURE: FOOD AID FOR DEPRIVED PERSONS

(3)  define priorities to select the recipients and inter-

mediaries of the aid;

(4) 

reconsider regulatory restriction of foods for distribu-
tion;

(5) 

consider introducing a level of standardisation;

(6) 

encourage Member States to develop specific, meas-
urable,  achievable,  relevant  and  timely  (SMART ) 
object ives for the implementation of the programme; 
and

(7) 

increase openness of competition and ensure that the 
best prices on the market are achieved by:

(a) 

 better defining the legal basis and implementing 
rules for the procurement of food products for 
deprived persons. In addition,

(b) 

 the bartering arrangements should be discon-
tinued.

The implementation of the Court’s 
recommendations

5.
The Commission fully implemented two recommen-
dations (Nos 1 and 4), one in most respects (No 2), 
two in some respects (Nos 6 and 7(a)) and three were 
not implemented (Nos 3, 5 and 7(b)).

1.
Special Report No 6/2009 concerned food aid for 
deprived persons.

2.
‘I n  the  wak e  of  an  exceptionally  cold  winter  of 
1986/87 the Community adopted a programme to 
release agricultural products, which were available in 
the Community intervention stocks, for free to chari-
table organisations for distribution to the persons in 
need. The  measure  was  widely  welcomed  and  still 
applies today. The programme has two main object-
ives: a social one (to make a significant contribution 
towards  the  well-being  of  most  deprived  citizens) 
and a market one (to stabilise the markets of agri -
cultural products through the reduction of interven-
tion stocks). The participation of the Member States 
in the programme is voluntary. The budget has been 
increased from 307  million euros in 2008 to 500 mil-
lion  euros in 2009 for the 18 participating Member 
States.’

(Source: Information note ECA/09/51)

3.
In a context of an evolving market and social situ-
ation,  the  Court  audited  the  sound  financial  man-
agement of the programme between 2005 and 2008 
and its implementation in four Member States (Spain, 
France, Italy and Poland) which used the most signifi-
cant part of the EU financial resources.

The Court’s recommendations

4.
The   Co ur t   rec om m e n de d   t ha t  t he   Comm is sio n 
should:

(1) 

(2) 

consider whether it is appropriate to continue finan-
cing such a measure from the common agricultural 
policy;

encourage Member States to embed the programme 
in the social policy framework and improve coordin-
ation and cooperation with other key actors for social 
actions;

19

2012 REPORT ON THE FOLLOW-UP OF THE EUROPEAN COURT OF AUDITORS’ SPECIAL REPORTS ANNEX III

The main points from the Court’s follow‑up

MEASURING THE IMPACT OF THE MEASURE

FUTURE FINANCING FROM COHESION REPLACES CAP (COMMON 
AGRICULTURAL POLICY)

6.
The  Regulation  (EU)  No 121/2012 7  amended  the 
present food distribution scheme by providing for 
a phasing- out period. The phasing-out period ends at 
the completion of the 2013 annual plan, after which 
the present scheme will lapse.

7.
The  proposed  regulation  (COM(2012) 617  final  of 
24 October 2012) establishes the Fund for European 
Aid to the Most Deprived (FEAD) for the period 2014–
20, which will complement the existing cohesion in-
struments and notably the European Social Fund.

INCREASING SYNERGY

8.
Within the present scheme DG Agriculture and Rural 
Development presented a ‘Roadmap for adopting the 
amendment of the 2012 food distribution plan for the 
most deprived persons (MDPs)’ and the Commission 
issued in March 2012 further guidelines to Member 
States for the implementation.

9.
Within the new COM(2012) 617 proposal: there would 
be an obligation for the charitable organisations de-
livering food or other goods to MDPs to also under-
take activities aiming at the social reintegration of the 
people assisted. This proposal is awaiting adoption by 
the EU legislative bodies.

10.
However, the Commission did not undertake further 
measures to ensure better targeting of the scheme 
(recommendation No 3) and improved accountability 
for food aid received on the basis that Member States 
would  be  better  placed  to  do  this.  It  also  rejected 
the recommendation (No 5) to introduce a degree of 
standardisation of programmes as this would reduce 
the flexibility in programming. SMART objectives with 
performance indicators and binding implementation 
guidelines for the Member States have yet to be de-
veloped. In addition, a review of the reporting sys -
tem for the scheme still needs to be carried out, to 
improve the management information available to 
the Commission as a result of changes in the imple -
mentation rules.

11.
Following limited corrective action taken by the Com-
mission, the following weaknesses remain:

(1) 

(2) 

since the procurement directive is not always well 
transposed in the Member States, the procedures do 
not guarantee equal access to all EU operators, nor 
do they ensure that the best conditions and prices 
are obtained,;and

since the Commission did not address the recom-
mendation (No 7(b)) to discontinue bartering arrange-
ments using intervention stocks, the risk that these ar-
rangements may not always be cost-effective persists.

7  Regulation (EU) No 121/2012 of the European Parliament and of 
the Council of 15 February 2012 amending Council Regulations (EC) 
No 1290/2005 and (EC) No 1234/2007 as regards distribution of food 
products to the most deprived persons in the Union (OJ L 44, 16.2.2012, 
p. 1).

20

2012 REPORT ON THE FOLLOW-UP OF THE EUROPEAN COURT OF AUDITORS’ SPECIAL REPORTS ANNEX IV

AGRICULTURE: IMPLEMENTATION OF THE LEADER APPROACH

1.
Special Report No 5/2010 concerned the imple‑
mentation of the Leader approach for rural de ‑
velopment.

2.
‘Leader is an approach for implementing the EU’s rural 
development policy through local partnerships (local 
action groups, commonly known as LAGs). The as-
sumption behind the Leader approach is that there is 
an added value compared with traditional top-down 
implementation. Bottom-up approaches and inter-
action between different sectors at local level should 
mobilise local potential.

3.
The LAGs bear the main responsibility for achieving 
the Leader added value and sound financial manage-
ment. The European Commission and Member States 
share responsibility for supervising the LAGs’ perform-
ance and ensuring that they follow the Leader ap-
proach and consistently achieve the highest stand-
ards of sound financial management.’

(Source: Information note ECA/10/27)

4.
The  Court  assessed  whether  the  Leader  approach 
has been implemented in ways that add value while 
minimising the risks to sound financial management.

(3) 

(4) 

(5) 

(6) 

review with Member States the existing constraints on 
local actions with the aim of allowing more innovative 
and multisectoral local strategies;

ensure that Member States require the LAGs to set 
specific, measurable, achievable objectives for the 
2007–13 local development strategies;

check future programmes in sufficient detail for the 
specific elements that are fundamental to the added 
value, effectiveness and efficiency of Leader; and

ensure that it can account for the added value and 
sound financial management of Leader and coord-
inate with the Member States to ensure that the 
super visory and control systems provide assurance 
on the fairness and transparency of procedures.

The implementation of the Court’s 
recommendations

6.
Two of the six recommendations were implemented 
in most respects (Nos 2 and 3), three in some respects 
(Nos 1, 4 and 6), and in one case the available evi-
dence was insufficient to form an opinion (No 5) as 
the 2014–20 programmes are not yet available.

The main points from the Court’s follow‑up

The Court’s recommendations

CLEAR STANDARDS

5.
The   Co ur t   rec om m e n de d   t ha t  t he   Comm is sio n 
should:

7.
The main improvement was the provision of clearer 
rules for LAGs’ decision-making committees.

(1) 

ensure that the legislation provides sufficient clar-
ity on the standards required in the specific frame-
work of Leader for the eligibility of costs, the fairness 
of spending decisions and the composition of LAGs’ 
decision-making committees;

(2) 

ensure together with Member States that effective 
safeguards are in place to avoid conflicts of interest 
and check that they operate correctly;

8.
The main weakness is that expenditure incurred prior 
to the approval of grant applications can continue to 
be eligible.

21

2012 REPORT ON THE FOLLOW-UP OF THE EUROPEAN COURT OF AUDITORS’ SPECIAL REPORTS ANNEX IV

CONFLICT OF INTEREST

MONITORING

9.
The  requirement  to  avoid  conflicts  of  interest  has 
been included in the implementing Regulation (EC) 
No 1974/2006 8. However, this does not specifically re-
quire declarations of interests to be documented and 
made public, which would be an effective safeguard.

10.
While the ongoing evaluation work and the ex post 
evaluation are likely to improve following the guid-
ance provided by the Commission, the information 
currently available is not yet sufficient to show the 
added value achieved by Leader.

8  Commission Regulation (EC) No 1974/2006 of 15 December 2006 
laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation 
(EC) No 1698/2005 on support for rural development by the European 
Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) (OJ L 368, 23.12.2006, 
p. 15).

22

2012 REPORT ON THE FOLLOW-UP OF THE EUROPEAN COURT OF AUDITORS’ SPECIAL REPORTS ANNEX V

COHESION: SOLIDARITY FUND

The main points from the Court’s follow‑up

GUIDELINES FOR APPLICANT STATES

6.
Improvements were achieved in the quality of appli-
cations, as evidenced by the reduction in the num-
ber of rejected applications and those for which add-
itional information was requested.

7.
Further improvements, concerning the assessment 
phase and subsequent phases facilitating the execu-
tion of payments, may be achieved through a revision 
of the EUSF regulation.

1.
Special Report No 3/2008 concerned the Solidar‑
ity Fund and questioned how rapid, efficient and 
flexible it is.

2.
‘ The European Union Solidarity Fund (EUSF) was set 
up in 2002 in response to the serious floods in Ger-
many, Austria, the Czech Republic and France. The 
Fund  was  intended  to  demonstrate  solidarity  with 
Member States suffering as a result of natural disas -
ters. Up to the end of 2006 it had provided aid of over 
1 billion euros in respect of 23 disasters.’

(Source: Information note ECA/08/10)

3.
The Council wanted the EUSF to be rapid, efficient 
and flexible in providing assistance. The audit of the 
EUSF examined whether the fund had achieved these 
aims and whether recipient states were satisfied with 
the fund.

The Court’s recommendations

4.
The   Co ur t   rec om m e n de d   t ha t  t he   Comm is sio n 
should:

(1)  have procedures in place to ensure that an applicant 
state receives timely and detailed guidance on the 
requirements of the application; and

(2) 

establish direct contact with the body in the Member 
or Accession State responsible for preparing the ap-
plication.

The implementation of the Court’s 
recommendations

5.
Both recommendations were fully implemented.

23

2012 REPORT ON THE FOLLOW-UP OF THE EUROPEAN COURT OF AUDITORS’ SPECIAL REPORTS ANNEX VI

COHESION: VOCATIONAL TRAINING FOR WOMEN

1.
Special Report No 17/2009 concerned vocational 
training  actions  for  women  co‑financed  by  the 
ESF.

2.
‘Vocational training actions for women — the main 
specific  ESF-funded  means  of  promoting  equal 
oppor tunities  for  men  and  women  in  the  labour 
market — accounted for an estimated 3  billion euros 
during the 2000–06 period. These measures comple-
ment programmes or actions that the Member States 
may  implement  without  EU  co-financing.  For  the 
2007–13 programme period, the budget for specific 
actions has decreased significantly, as more emphasis 
has been placed on what is known as gender main-
streaming.’

(Source: Information note ECA/10/06)

3.
The Court analysed whether vocational training ac-
tions for women co-financed by the European Social 
Fund during the 2000–06 programme period were 
appropriately selected and adequately monitored.

The Court’s recommendations

4.
The Court recommended that, regarding the selec-
tion of vocational training actions:

(1) 

(2) 

(3) 

future  operational  programmes  prepared  in  the 
Member States and approved by the Commission 
be established in light of an analysis of labour market 
conditions;

a properly designed project selection procedure be 
put in place in the Member States and correctly im-
plemented; and

the Commission should continue to monitor the es-
tablishment by the Member States of appropriate and 
feasible indicators and that reliable data be collected 
in the Member States.

The implementation of the Court’s 
recommendations

5.
The Commission implemented one recommendation 
in most respects (No 2) and the two others in some 
respects (Nos 1 and 3).

The main points from the Court’s follow‑up

ANALYSIS OF LABOUR MARKET CONDITIONS

6.
An  analysis  of  the  labour  market  conditions  is  not 
a systematic  par t  of  the  analyses  or  repor ting  of 
current OPs. However, for the programming period 
2014–20, the alignment with Europe 2020 strategy 
and the specific requirements for the preparation of 
the OPs should result in the provision of labour mar-
ket analyses. The draft regulations for the program-
ming period 2014–20, which are awaiting approval, 
contain provisions for a stronger result -oriented ap-
proach with output indicators, expected results, pro-
cedure for selection of operations and target groups.

PROJECT SELECTION PROCEDURE

7.
The Commission issued a guidance note on transpar -
ent project selection procedures and assessed its im-
plementation through its audits. However, the guid-
ance did not make the link with the recommended 
labour market analysis.

APPROPRIATE AND FEASIBLE INDICATORS

8.
The  Commission  issued  guidelines  for  the  current 
programming  period  and  proposed  guidance  and 
mandator y  indicators  for  the  next  programming 
 period which are included in the draft regulation.

24

2012 REPORT ON THE FOLLOW-UP OF THE EUROPEAN COURT OF AUDITORS’ SPECIAL REPORTS ANNEX VII

EXTERNAL ACTIONS: REHABILITATION

1.
Special Report No 6/2008 concerned rehabilita‑
tion after the Indian Ocean tsunami and hurricane 
Mitch.

2.
‘ The  Indian  Ocean  tsunami  of  26  December  2004 
k illed  over  200  000  people  and  caused  damage 
of  around  10  billion  euros. The  Commission’s  ini-
tial  humanitarian  aid  response,  designed  to  save 
lives  and  address  immediate  needs,  was  followed 
by  longer-term rehabilitation aid of some 300  mil-
lion  euros, which aimed to reconstruct basic infra-
structure and to provide a basis for sustainable de -
velopment.’

(Source: Information note ECA/08/13)

3.
The Court reported on the Commission’s initial hu-
manitarian aid response to the tsunami in Special Re-
port No 3/2006 and this second audit (Special Report 
No 6/2008) examined the subsequent rehabilitation 
phase and also included the Commission’s 250  mil-
lion euro rehabilitation response to hurricane Mitch, 
which struck Central America in October 1998.

The Court’s recommendations

4.
The   Co ur t   rec om m e n de d   t ha t  t he   Comm is sio n 
should:

(1) 

(2) 

rapidly design rehabilitation projects and involve 
bene ficiaries;

continue its efforts in full cooperation with other 
 donors, to improve the transparency of funds and es-
tablish independent quality review;

(3) 

ensure that comparative cost information is available 
and that clear project targets are developed;

(4)  better anticipate significant price increases following 

natural disasters;

(5) 

(6) 

ensure adequate visibility for the projects funded by 
the EU; and

ensure the sustainability of projects after EU funding 
has ended.

The implementation of the Court’s 
recommendations

5.
The Commission fully implemented four recommen-
dations (Nos 1, 2, 5, and 6) and implemented in most 
respects the remaining two (Nos 3 and 4).

The main points from the Court’s follow‑up

IMPROVING MANAGEMENT AND COOPERATION

6.
The Commission created and promoted EuropeAid’s 
Fragility and Crisis Management Unit. In addition, it 
issued several communications, including the agenda 
for change, the disaster risk reduction (DRR) strategy 
and  implementation  plan  and  the  resilience  com-
munication, which represents an important step in 
 taking the linking relief, rehabilitation and develop-
ment (LRRD) approach forward.

7.
Reporting and monitoring via the Multi-Donor Trust 
Fund (MDTF) Secretariat and via an independent tech-
nical specialist was also improved.

25

2012 REPORT ON THE FOLLOW-UP OF THE EUROPEAN COURT OF AUDITORS’ SPECIAL REPORTS ANNEX VII

COMPARATIVE COSTS AND CLEAR PROJECT TARGETS

SUSTAINABILITY

8.
While the Commission continues to ensure that its 
project implementation is evaluated, EuropeAid does 
not ensure that comparative cost information is read-
ily available as a reference against which the project 
costs can be monitored.

10.
The QSG checklists for project identification and for-
mulation each check aspects of sustainability at the 
project design stage. Other checks also ensure that 
sustainability is at the core of all interventions.

VISIBILITY OF EU FUNDING

9.
EuropeAid’s standard methodology for verification 
missions of HQ staff to European Union delegations 
was revised to include several checks on the visibility 
of EU funding. The quality support group (QSG) also 
assesses  EU  visibility  for  all  projects  and  grant  ap -
plications. The guidelines for international organisa-
tions also require such EU visibility when they help 
the Commission implement programmes.

26

2012 REPORT ON THE FOLLOW-UP OF THE EUROPEAN COURT OF AUDITORS’ SPECIAL REPORTS ANNEX VIII

EXTERNAL ACTIONS: EDF SUPPORT

(4) 

(5) 

(6) 

clearly define the responsibilities of the different dele-
gations in the regions concerned;

establish an appropriate coordination mechanism 
between delegations in a region;

review the resources allocated to delegations for the 
programming and implementation of its regional pro-
grammes;

(7)  use contribution agreements with regional organisa-
tions only where the financial management is found 
to comply with international standards;

(8)  Help the regional organisations to improve coord-
ination among themselves and between them and 
their Member States;

(9)  Help the regional organisations to establish monitor-

ing systems;

(10) 

formulate SMART project objectives; and

(11)  pay more attention to regular, good-quality progress 
reporting, systematic monitoring and evaluation of 
project results.

The implementation of the Court’s 
recommendations

5.
The Commission fully implemented five recommen-
dations (Nos 3, 4, 5, 7, and 8), four recommendations 
were implemented in most respects (Nos 1, 2, 9, and 
10) and in two cases (Nos 6 and 11) the Court was 
unable to conclude on the extent of implementation.

1.
Special Report No 18/2009 concerned effective‑
ness of EDF support for regional economic inte‑
gration in east Africa and west Africa.

2.
‘Regional integration is the process of neighbouring 
countries cooperating in order to improve political 
stability and to stimulate economic development in 
a region. In larger and more harmonised markets, the 
free movement of goods, services, capital and people 
enables economies of scale and stimulates trade and 
investment. Regional economic integration between 
developing countries is thus a vehicle for economic 
growth and can contribute to poverty reduction.’

(Source: SR No 18/2009, executive summary)

3.
The  Cour t  analysed  whether  European  Develop -
ment Fund support for regional economic integra-
tion has been effective in east Africa and west Africa, 
which  together  account  for  well  over  50 %  of  the 
 total amount allocated to regional EDF programmes. 
The Court examined the European Commission’s ap-
proach, its management of the support provided and 
a sample of individual projects and concluded that, 
overall, EDF support for regional economic integra-
tion has so far been only partially effective, due to 
a number of factors.

The Court’s recommendations

4.
The   Co ur t   rec om m e n de d   t ha t  t he   Comm is sio n 
should:

(1)  make the support for regional integration conditional 
on an early agreement on how to achieve the neces-
sary convergence between regional organisations;

(2) 

(3) 

improve the coherence between its regional strategy 
and national strategies;

examine whether the financial allocation to regional 
programmes is too high;

27

2012 REPORT ON THE FOLLOW-UP OF THE EUROPEAN COURT OF AUDITORS’ SPECIAL REPORTS ANNEX VIII

The main points from the Court’s follow‑up

DELEGATIONS

8.
In  2010  the  Commission  prepared  and  circulated 
a guidance note for managing regional programmes, 
which should lead to improved coordination between 
HQ and delegations and among delegations them-
selves. These  guidelines  also  defined  clearly  when 
a  contribution agreement may be signed with a  re-
gional organisation. Evidence of reinforcement of the 
four regional delegations concerned is dependent on 
the actual arrival of the additional staff (planned for 
2013 and 2014).

PROJECT ASSESSMENT, MONITORING AND EVALUATION

9.
The Commission’s quality support groups carry out 
a  systematic assessment of proposed projects/pro-
grammes.  However,  the  thematic  guidelines  to  be 
used  for  the  preparation  of  regional  projects/pro-
grammes have not yet been finalised. The Commis-
sion is also in the process of revising its monitoring 
and evaluation system.

REGIONAL INTEGRATION

6.
Activities are continuing by regional organisations in 
both regions as well as by members of those organ-
isations to work towards further regional integration, 
in particular by implementing at national level inte-
gration commitments agreed upon at regional level. 
The Commission has continued to provide support to 
the regional integration process towards enhancing 
coordination and convergence among the regional 
organisations and towards improving monitoring and 
evaluation. However, there is still a lack of interest in 
some members of those organisations in pursuing 
regional integration as well as a weak institutional 
capacity within the regional organisations.

COHERENCE REGIONAL/NATIONAL STRATEGIES AND ALLOCATION 
OF FUNDING

7.
The Commission has undertaken a number of activ -
ities to ensure greater coherence between regional 
integration strategies and actions at regional level 
and  at  national  level,  which  should  become  more 
apparent  under  the  11th  EDF.  A more  realistic  re - 
allocation of funds has also taken place between the 
different  regions,  with  part  of  the  10th  EDF  funds 
being re-allocated to the sustainable energy for all 
initiative.

28

2012 REPORT ON THE FOLLOW-UP OF THE EUROPEAN COURT OF AUDITORS’ SPECIAL REPORTS ANNEX IX

EXTERNAL ACTIONS: BANKING MEASURES

1.
Special  Repor t  No  1/2009  concerned  banking 
measures in the Mediterranean area.

(4) 

ensure that monitoring by the EIB provides that all 
projects are adequately executed and that the finan-
cial and reporting obligations of the intermediaries/
promoters are met; and

2.
‘Cooperation between the EU and non-member Medi -
terranean countries started some 30 years ago and 
has gradually developed over the years. The frame -
work  for  financial  and  technical  measures  (MEDA) 
aiming to accompany the reform of economic and 
social structures in the partner countries in the con-
text of the Euro-Mediterranean partnership covered 
the period 1996–2006.

3.
Three types of banking measures are financed under 
the MEDA regulations or the previous protocols from 
the  EU  budget  and  implemented  by  the  European 
Investment Bank (EIB): technical assistance through 
the FEMIP (Facility for Euro-Mediterranean Investment 
and Partnership) Support Fund, interest rate subsidies 
for certain EIB loans and risk capital operations.’

(Source: Information note ECA/09/18)

(5)  define an overall strategy for risk capital operations 
and choose the best implementation process.

The implementation of the Court’s 
recommendations

6.
The Commission fully implemented all five recom-
mendations.

The main points from the Court’s follow‑up

EVALUATION AND MONITORING PROGRAMME

7.
The Commission introduced key organisational and 
procedural changes, such as:

4.
The Court audited the banking measures under the 
MEDA programme and the previous protocols to de-
termine whether the ongoing projects were being 
adequately monitored by the Commission and the 
EIB and whether the projects had achieved their ob-
jectives.

(1) 

(2) 

The Court’s recommendations

in 2008 EuropeAid set up a new section within the 
unit responsible for banking measures in the Medi-
terranean area with the aim of addressing the Court’s 
observations as soon as possible;

in 2011 in the course of the reorganisation of Europe-
Aid, a new unit was created to promote, coordinate, 
manage and monitor innovative financial instruments 
of the external relations portfolios in the regions cov-
ered by EuropeAid; and

5.
The   Co ur t   rec om m e n de d   t ha t  t he   Comm is sio n 
should:

(3) 

EuropeAid developed at the end of 2009 detailed 
guidelines for the EIB in order to clearly define their se-
lection of new operations financed by the EU budget.

(1) 

set up a tailor-made evaluation and monitoring pro-
gramme for banking measures;

(2) 

ensure the effective coordination of assistance;

(3)  negotiate adequate management conventions;

29

2012 REPORT ON THE FOLLOW-UP OF THE EUROPEAN COURT OF AUDITORS’ SPECIAL REPORTS ANNEX IX

COORDINATION OF THE ASSISTANCE

8.
Since 2010, coordination between EuropeAid, the EIB 
and the European External Action Service (EEAS) has 
been significantly enhanced. In addition, EuropeAid 
organised information sessions and provided training 
to staff in the EU delegations dealing with these facili-
ties in order to streamline implementation, monitor-
ing and reporting at local level.

MANAGEMENT CONVENTIONS

9.
A new management agreement between the EU and 
the EIB on the implementation of operations financed 
from the general budget of the EU was signed at the 
end of 2012 bringing improvements in environmental 
compliance and monitoring, visibility of EU fundings 
and reporting.

30

2012 REPORT ON THE FOLLOW-UP OF THE EUROPEAN COURT OF AUDITORS’ SPECIAL REPORTS ANNEX X

REVENUES: TREASURY MANAGEMENT

1.
Special  Repor t  No  5/2009  concerned  treasur y 
management of the Commission.

2.
‘ The main tasks of the Commission’s treasury man-
agement are: (a) treasury planning and forecasting, 
and more specifically cash flow forecasting and draw-
ing financial resources from own resources accounts; 
(b) management of treasury operations (receipt and 
payments); and (c) management of bank accounts.

3.
Treasury management is performed by two direct-
orates-general (DGs): DG Budget and DG Economic 
and  Financial  Affairs.  DG  Budget  is  responsible  for 
treasury management of the entire budget managed 
by the Commission and the European Development 
Fund. DG Economic and Financial Affairs is respon-
sible  for  the  treasur y  management  of  other  non- 
budgetary items and the investment of Community 
funds’.

(Source: Information note ECA/09/30)

4.
The main objective of the Court’s audit was to assess 
the  quality  of  the  Commission’s  treasur y  manage -
ment and in particular whether: (a) the Commission 
complied with the rules and regulations applicable to 
treasury management; and (b) the Commission had 
established  internal  control  systems  which  ensure 
sound treasury management.

The Court’s recommendations

5.
The  Co ur t   rec om men ded   t ha t   t he   Comm is sio n 
should:

(1) 

analyse the functioning of the present system of own 
resources accounts, with the aim of reducing balances 
on these accounts; and

(2) 

improve the documentation of its cash flow forecast-
ing procedures.

6.
It also recommended in relation to the internal con-
trol systems, that the Commission should:

(1) 

improve the oversight of its treasury management 
activities;

(2) 

improve the documentation of its risk management;

(3)  have a uniform policy and adequate guidelines for the 

opening of fiduciary accounts; and

(4) 

search for an optimum solution for the treatment of 
provisionally collected fines.

7.
The Court also recommended in relation to imprest 
accounts that:

(1) 

the requirements established for tender procedures 
for the selection of the banks should be followed and 
the selection procedure appropriately documented.

The implementation of the Court’s 
recommendations

8.
The Commission fully implemented five recommenda-
tions (Nos 2, 3, 4, 6, and 7) and two recommendations 
were implemented in most respects (Nos 1 and 5).

31

2012 REPORT ON THE FOLLOW-UP OF THE EUROPEAN COURT OF AUDITORS’ SPECIAL REPORTS ANNEX X

The main points from the Court’s follow‑up

TREATMENT OF PROVISIONALLY COLLECTED FINES

ANALYSING OWN RESOURCES ACCOUNTS

9.
DG Budget succeeded in reducing the year end bal-
ances in 2008, 2009  and 2011 despite the absence of 
changes to the system for collecting own resources 
from the Member States. As the system is legislated 
by the Council, the Commission does not have the 
competence to change the system.

CASH FLOW FORECASTING PROCEDURES

10.
The  reporting  tools  for  the  cash  flow  and  treasury 
forecasts were revised in 2009 and the updated cash 
flow  management  now  includes  monthly  written 
communications. Cash flow reporting and forecast-
ing procedures, which date from 2010, are also being 
updated.

IMPROVED OVERSIGHT

11.
DG  Budget ’s  risk  management  policy  is  regularly 
revised,  with  limits  and  requirements  being  modi-
fied. Discussions have also taken place between DG 
 Budget  and  DG  Economic  and  Financial  Affairs  on 
improving risk management and the management 
of fines.

12.
The financial risk management policy of the Commis-
sion was published in 2012. In addition, DG Budget 
set up a risk management policy for treasury and pay -
ment operations and specific procedures for oper-
ational risks are in place for business continuity.

13.
Indicators for the treasury operations have been es-
tablished by the Commission. These indicators are 
tracked regularly and exceptions or deviations from 
targets are analysed and followed up.

14.
DG Budget and DG Economic and Financial Affairs 
signed a service level agreement at the end of 2009. 
In addition, a fund for the new provisionally cashed 
fines, managed since January 2010 by DG Economic 
and  Financial  Affairs,  was  created.  Furthermore,  in 
2011, the IAC of DG Economic and Financial Affairs 
examined the revised arrangements for the treatment 
of provisionally collected fines and concluded that 
the activity was effectively managed.

MANAGEMENT OF IMPREST ACCOUNTS

15.
In  close  cooperation  with  the  EU  delegations  DG 
Budget  proposes  the  most  economic  solutions  for 
the management of imprest accounts. These selec-
tion  procedures  are  documented  and  compliance 
with the procedures is examined during inspection 
visits by DG Budget. These inspections may result in 
recommendations  contained  in  the  inspection  re -
ports which are communicated to the EEAS.

FIDUCIARY ACCOUNTS

16.
While most of the provisions of the financial regula-
tion were applied from 1 January 2013, the new rules 
on financial instruments and indirect management 
will be applicable only from 1  January  2014. The fi-
nancial  and  administrative  framework  agreement 
(FAFA — policies and guidelines for the operation of 
certain fiduciary accounts) between the EIB and the 
Commission, as well as specific instructions on fiduci-
ary accounts, still needs to be signed.

32

2012 REPORT ON THE FOLLOW-UP OF THE EUROPEAN COURT OF AUDITORS’ SPECIAL REPORTS ANNEX XI

RESEARCH: RTD FRAMEWORK PROGRAMMES

1.
Special Report No 9/2007 concerned the evalu‑
ation of research and technological development 
framework programmes, to establish whether the 
Commission’s approach could be improved.

The Court’s recommendations

5.
The Court recommended that:

(1) 

(2) 

(3) 

(4) 

(5) 

intervention logic should be rendered explicit in fu-
ture legislation;

a comprehensive evaluation strategy should be de-
veloped;

consideration should be given to setting up a joint 
evaluation office for coordinating the research DGs’ 
evaluation activities for the FP as a whole;

the data collection, evaluation and reporting should 
be optimised; and

the Commission should establish the type and scope 
of evaluation and clarify how they can be used.

The implementation of the Court’s 
recommendations

6.
The Commission fully implemented four recommen-
dations (Nos 1, 3, 4 and 5), and one recommendation 
in most respects (No 2).

2.
‘ Within the wide range of policies implemented in 
the European Union to strengthen  innovation  and 
competitiveness,  the  RTD  framework  programmes 
(FPs)  are  the  most  important  financial  instrument 
contributing to the Lisbon strategy and the Barce-
lona objective at the Community level. Through the 
FPs, the Community provides funding to researchers 
within the European Union, associated countries and 
beyond. Their budgets have increased significantly 
over the years, reaching 7 217 million euros per year 
under FP7 (2007 to 2013).

3.
The audit addressed the basic question of whether 
the Commission’s approach to assessing the results 
of the FPs was adequate. In this context, the Court 
checked whether the Commission met the legal re-
quirements and ascertained whether its system for 
evaluation and monitoring met stakeholder expect-
ations.’

(Source: Information note ECA/07/40)

4.
The Court’s audit covered the evaluation and moni-
toring arrangements in place at the Commission since 
1995 for  the  last three programming  periods (FP4, 
FP5, FP6) and also gave an outlook for the current 
FP7 (2007–13).

33

2012 REPORT ON THE FOLLOW-UP OF THE EUROPEAN COURT OF AUDITORS’ SPECIAL REPORTS ANNEX XI

9.
Although  it  is  not  a joint  evaluation  office,  the  In -
terservice RTD Evaluation Network now coordinates 
the research DGs’ evaluation activities for the FP.

10.
The Commission established a common research data 
warehouse  which  provides  users  with  information 
about the outcome of concluded FP7 calls for pro-
posals, including FP7 participation and performance 
statistics.

The main points from the Court’s follow‑up

INTERVENTION LOGIC

7.
The  new  legislative  proposals  include  a clear  and 
comprehensive description of the specific objectives 
for research funding, as well as a limited number of 
key indicators for assessing results and impact. How-
ever, these proposals have not been approved by the 
legislator yet.

EVALUATION AND MONITORING

8.
The Commission established a system for collecting 
a set of FP7-wide key performance indicators, which 
form the backbone of the yearly FP7 monitoring re-
ports. A manual for the evaluation of research pro -
grammes has also been established and forms part of 
the internal control standards in DG Research and In-
novation. However, a document containing the con -
crete evaluation strategy has not yet been produced.

34

2012 REPORT ON THE FOLLOW-UP OF THE EUROPEAN COURT OF AUDITORS’ SPECIAL REPORTS REPLY OF THE COMMISSION

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

VI.
The RAD functions and the categories ‘accepted’, ‘rejected’, ‘done’ and ‘cancelled’ were created in 2003. When a recommen -
dation is partially accepted and hence partially implemented, the services have no other choice than selecting ‘Accepted’ 
and later on ‘Done’.

However, since the issuing of the Court’s first special report on the follow-up of its recommendations and with the steep 
increase in the number of recommendations and requests addressed to the Commission, the Commission has polished 
up the instructions addressed to its services in replying to the said recommendations/requests by asking them to clearly 
state if the services in question accept them and, where possible, to indicate to what degree they have been done.

VII.
The categories ‘fully implemented’, ‘being implemented in most respects’, ‘being implemented in some respects’, ‘not 
implemented’, ‘N/A under the current framework’ or ‘no longer relevant’, and ‘insufficient evidence’ were used by the Court 
in its Special Report No 19/2012, published in late 2012.

The Commission, through its Audit Progress Committee, is undergoing a thorough reflection on its follow-up of recom -
mendations/requests in order to strengthen the process and will consult the Court on this matter.

THE COMMISSION’S IMPLEMENTATION OF 62 RECOMMENDATIONS

15.
The monitoring and evaluation system for the CAP towards 2020 includes clear objectives and a set of indicators that 
should help to assess the output, result and impact of the CAP measures/instruments. However, it should be noted that 
all measurement comes at a cost, and often a balance has to be struck between administrative burden and costs for bene -
ficiaries and administrations and the benefits of having detailed and recent information. Moreover, indicators cannot be 
looked at in isolation, but require careful analysis and interpretation within their context.

REVIEW OF THE COMMISSION’S FOLLOW-UP PROCEDURES

26.
RAD contains only four categories: ‘Accepted’, ‘Rejected’, ‘Done’ and ‘Cancelled’. As a consequence, whenever a recommen -
dation is partially accepted and hence partially implemented, the services have no other choice than selecting ‘Accepted’ 
and later on ‘Done’. This lack of alignment between the Commission's and the Court's categorisation can justify the dis-
crepancy between the number of recommendations which the Court considers as being ‘Fully implemented’ and those 
which are classified as ‘Done’ in RAD. (See also reply to paragraph VI.)

Harmonising the categories used by the Commission and the Court might be one of the subjects of discussion in the 
future discussions between the two institutions (as mentioned in the reply to the recommendation after paragraph 32).

35

2012 REPORT ON THE FOLLOW-UP OF THE EUROPEAN COURT OF AUDITORS’ SPECIAL REPORTS 27.
As the Court’s recommendations often consist of sub-recommendations, the Commission has recently introduced the 
practice of splitting these recommendations in RAD to facilitate the follow-up process. The Commission expects that this 
practice will lead to a reduction of the number of partially implemented recommendations.

(See also the Commission’s replies to paragraphs VI and 26.)

28.
See the Commission’s reply to paragraphs VI, VII and 27.

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

32.
Since the issuing of the Court’s first special report on the follow-up of its recommendations and with the steep increase 
in the number of recommendations and requests addressed to it, the Commission has polished up the instructions 
addressed to its services in replying to the said recommendations/requests by asking them to clearly state if the services 
in question accept them and, where possible, to indicate to what degree they have been done.

Recommendation
The Commission, through its Audit Progress Committee, is undergoing a thorough reflection on its follow-up of recom -
mendations/requests in order to strengthen it and will call upon the Court to provide a  constructive input to it. The 
Commission agrees to assess the possibility to further develop the RAD application in order to improve the information 
provided to management.

COMMISSION REPLIES TO ANNEX II — AGRICULTURE: SUPPORT FOR FRUIT AND VEGETABLE PRODUCERS' 
OPERATIONAL PROGRAMMES

8.
The producer organisations’ concentration of supply during the last years can be shown by an increase of 12,2 percent-
age points in the organisation rate of the OPs in the EU-27 in  2004–10. The boost in the OPs’ concentration of supply is 
particularly seen in the EU-15, whereas the overall organisation rate reached 47,7 % in 2010, against its 33,7 % in 2004. 
The available tools (support for producer groups) and the amendments introduced by the reform (higher co-financing 
rate and national financial aid for operational programmes in Member States with a low degree of organisation or which 
joined the Union in 2004 or thereafter) have proven effective in some cases (e.g. Portugal, Poland). However the period 
considered is too short to allow for a greater increase in the EU-12 similar to that registered in the EU-15.

11.
The Commission is aware of the fact that in many Member States most producers are not members of producer organisa-
tions and strives to make producer organisations more attractive. In the meantime, the ongoing review of the scheme is 
in search of new measures to encourage not only the setting up of producer organisations but also new forms of cooper-
ation among farmers.

36

2012 REPORT ON THE FOLLOW-UP OF THE EUROPEAN COURT OF AUDITORS’ SPECIAL REPORTS REPLY OF THE COMMISSIONCOMMISSION REPLIES TO ANNEX III — AGRICULTURE: FOOD AID FOR DEPRIVED PERSONS

5.
In respect of recommendations 2 and 6
The Commission, with reference to its remarks given under paragraphs 8 and 10 of Annex III, can agree with the assess-
ment of the Court.

In respect of recommendation 7(a) and 7(b)
The Commission, due to the reasons explained under paragraphs 11, 11(a) and 11(b) of Annex III, can only partially agree 
with the assessment of the Court.

In respect of recommendations 3 and 5
The Commission rejected these recommendations due to the reasons specified under paragraph 10 of Annex III.

8.
In respect of recommendation 2
The Commission agrees with the observation of the Court and reiterates its view that the scheme has had a powerful lev -
erage effect on the development of food initiatives or related measures by private bodies and public authorities. However, 
admittedly, the synergies could be further promoted. This question was also addressed in the context of its 2008 impact 
assessment and the subsequent proposal for a new Council regulation. Due to the phase-out of the scheme decided by 
the European Parliament and the Council in 2012, no such measures could be implemented under the current scheme. 
Nonetheless, the Commission has tried to encourage the establishment of synergies and complementarities with other 
national or local actions by calling, in its non-binding guidelines for the 2012  and  2013 annual plans, for the description 
of such links.

10.
In respect of recommendation 3
The Commission reiterates its view that Member States and not the Commission are better placed to target the action 
towards the specific needs at national and local level. The respect of the subsidiarity principle goes along with a higher 
efficiency of the scheme when the targeting of the beneficiaries remains Member States' competence. This does not 
mean that no targeting has to be done, but that this has to be left to the Member States, which have to include, in their 
plans, comprehensive information on recipients and charities taking part in the programme. This aspect has been particu-
larly stressed by the Commission in its non-binding guidelines for the implementation of the 2012  and 2013 annual plans.

In respect of recommendation 5
The Commission considers that the way the MDP programme is currently run (till its end with the completion of the 2013 
annual plan), with a large element of subsidiarity built into it and targeting done at national level, allows for the best 
possible impact of the programme, which has to focus on the most needy persons, which may considerably vary across 
Member States. Introducing further standards at EU level could hinder the necessary flexibility the MDP programme must 
preserve in order to adapt to the varied circumstances of the most deprived at local level.

37

2012 REPORT ON THE FOLLOW-UP OF THE EUROPEAN COURT OF AUDITORS’ SPECIAL REPORTS REPLY OF THE COMMISSION10.
In respect of recommendation 6
Within the framework of the revision process of the MDP started in 2008, the Commission has analysed several options 
to encourage Member States to set SMART objectives and enhance monitoring and reporting of the implementation 
of the programme. Nonetheless, due to the phasing out of the scheme finally decided by the European Parliament and 
the Council, only limited improvements could be implemented in the current scheme in this regard. In particular, in the 
guidelines for the implementation of the 2012 and  2013 annual plans, Member States were invited to better structure 
their programmes on clearly defined needs and objectives.

11.
In respect of recommendation 7(a) and 7(b) 
Considering that the revised legal framework (R. 121/2012) of the MDP has provided for the continuation of the scheme 
only until the completion of the 2013 annual distribution plan, the Commission did not amend existing implementing 
rules to clearly state the applicability of the standard EU rules on public procurement. Nonetheless, the Commission 
reminds that standard procurement rules are applicable to the current scheme, even in absence of specific provisions in 
this regard.

(1) In respect of recommendation 7(a) 
In addition to the reply given under paragraph 11, the Commission considers that the shortcomings identified by the 
Court in its special report, such as the lack of openness of the tenders, limited competition or risks of not obtaining 
the best conditions or prices, are linked to the incorrect interpretation of the general tendering rules by some national 
authorities rather than to the use of intervention stocks.

The Commission will better clarify the applicability of those rules in the detailed implementing rules that will be laid 
down as regards the use of intervention stocks within the future Fund for European Aid for the Most Deprived.

(2) In respect of recommendation 7(b)
Further to the reply given under paragraph 11, in the framework of the Fund for European Aid for the Most Deprived con-
sideration will be given to the Court's proposals allowing for the Member States to choose the disposal of intervention 
stocks on the markets of agricultural commodities and to use this revenue to purchase the required final products every 
time when the conditions of bartering arrangements could be seen as inefficient.

38

2012 REPORT ON THE FOLLOW-UP OF THE EUROPEAN COURT OF AUDITORS’ SPECIAL REPORTS REPLY OF THE COMMISSIONCOMMISSION REPLIES TO ANNEX IV — AGRICULTURE: IMPLEMENTATION OF THE LEADER APPROACH

8.
The proposal of the Commission for the EAFRD regulation 2014–20 (Article 67(2)) is based on a harmonised approach 
between all ESI funds, at the same time being in line with the current rules on state aid.

As regards the lack of improvement in the current period, in the trilogue on the alignment to the Lisbon Treaty the insti-
tutions could not agree on the proposal COM(2010) 537 (see the statement of the Court in paragraph 3).

Both proposals stipulate that EAFRD support shall be granted for expenditure incurred only after an application has been 
submitted to the competent authority.

9.
As regards the next period, guidance as regards procedures to avoid conflicts of interest is given in the draft guidance 
document on CLLD issued by the four DGs (mentioned in the reply to paragraph 9) in Chapter 4.3 on page 26 (‘Working 
procedures, rules and structures for decision-making in place should guarantee that the selection of projects is consistent 
with the objectives of the strategy, undertaken in a non-discriminatory and transparent manner and avoids in particular 
any risk of conflict of interest. Concerning the latter, LAGs should establish written procedures explaining how they intend 
to deal with this risk (for example on minutes of meetings, abstention on the vote, written declarations).’).

As regards declarations of interests, the Commission considers guidance as being sufficient.

10.
The ex post evaluation will constitute the key element to assess the value added achieved by Leader.

COMMISSION REPLIES TO ANNEX VI — COHESION: VOCATIONAL TRAINING FOR WOMEN

5.
The Commission takes note of the analysis of the Court. Indeed, recommendations 1 and 3 are implemented in some 
respects because the provisions for the future programming period 2014–20 are still under adoption at the time of this 
report. Nevertheless, through its proposals for 2014–20, the Commission has taken concrete action to fully deliver on 
these recommendations. The recommendations will be implemented under the new legislative framework.

Furthermore, whilst the Commission has no legal basis to impose on Member States specific project selection procedures, 
it is nevertheless pleased that its actions have borne fruit and brought improvements in this domain. The new guidelines 
for the ongoing programming period provide a clear response to these recommendations, as did changes to the oper -
ational programmes, including their allocation and priority setting.

39

2012 REPORT ON THE FOLLOW-UP OF THE EUROPEAN COURT OF AUDITORS’ SPECIAL REPORTS REPLY OF THE COMMISSION6.
The Commission welcomes the Court's conclusions. Member States will indeed be requested to provide labour market 
analysis in the next programming period. In addition Article 87 of the draft common provision regulation will define 
a stronger result-oriented approach.

7.
Regarding the need identified by the Court to strengthen the link between project selection procedures and a labour 
market analysis, it should be noted that there is no legal basis for the Commission to oblige monitoring committees to 
revise the criteria for selection following newly identified problems coming from an (updated) labour market analysis.

Moreover, the Commission considers that changing the priorities and related funding of the programmes at a  superior 
level is a more relevant tool to take into account the evolution of the labour market. In fact changes in programmes are 
necessarily translated at the level of the selection of projects.

Following the Court’s recommendations, and on the basis of considerable efforts by the Commission, significant changes 
have been brought to many programmes. These changes reflect the impact of the socio-economic crisis, including on 
the labour market. They introduce reprioritisation and reallocation of funding, leading to modifications in the type and 
number of projects selected on the ground.

8.
The Commission agrees with the Court’s analysis. Progress was made during the programming period 2007–13 with 
mandatory data reporting requirements (Annex XXIII of Regulation (EC) No 1828/2006), Member States’ strategic reports 
on Cohesion Funds of 2009  and  2012 and the annual implementation reports. Moreover, mandatory indicators will be 
included in the draft regulatory framework for the 2014–20 programming period.

COMMISSION REPLIES TO ANNEX VII — EXTERNAL ACTIONS: REHABILITATION

8.
The Commission considers that it is difficult to have such readily available information for various reconstruction contexts 
and in different countries with diverse socio-economic patterns. Cost information can be gathered on an ad hoc basis, 
but there is no such generic cost information to reliably determine efficiency. Therefore, the Commission considers that 
this recommendation has been followed to the extent possible.

40

2012 REPORT ON THE FOLLOW-UP OF THE EUROPEAN COURT OF AUDITORS’ SPECIAL REPORTS REPLY OF THE COMMISSIONCOMMISSION REPLIES TO ANNEX X — REVENUES: TREASURY MANAGEMENT

16.
The accounting officer’s instructions laying down rules for the opening, management and closure of fiduciary accounts 
are being finalised and are expected to come into force at the beginning of 2014.

The final discussions with the EIB on the financial and administrative framework agreement (FAFA) are ongoing and it is 
expected that the agreement will be signed soon. It will include guidelines for financial instrument account and asset 
management.

COMMISSION REPLIES TO ANNEX XI — RESEARCH: RTD FRAMEWORK PROGRAMMES

7.
The Horizon 2020 legal acts are in line with the overall approach proposed by the Commission to provide an explicit 
intervention logic and a limited number of key performance indicators.

8.
The Commission has committed itself before the legislator to prepare the overall approach for the evaluation and moni-
toring for Horizon 2020, as indicated notably in its impact assessment.

The Commission considers that the provisions on this matter in the legal acts and the key principles set out in the impact 
assessment for Horizon 2020’s evaluation strategy are substantially aligned to the Court of Auditors’ report’s observations.

The Commission will develop a comprehensive evaluation strategy for the whole of the Horizon 2020 actions according 
to these provisions and principles.

9.
The Commission considered whether to establish a joint office, but has finally chosen a different approach for the current 
FP7.

Nevertheless, although there is not a joint evaluation office, the current system in place — for FP7 — guarantees a  coher-
ent approach on evaluation which responds to the Court’s recommendation.

The Commission is currently working on the organisational arrangements for the management of Horizon 2020.

The establishment of a single unit dealing with data and reporting for the whole research policy will strengthen the 
common evaluation approach through the provision of coherent and comprehensive data on the implementation and 
outcomes of Horizon 2020.

41

2012 REPORT ON THE FOLLOW-UP OF THE EUROPEAN COURT OF AUDITORS’ SPECIAL REPORTS REPLY OF THE COMMISSIONEuropean Court of Auditors

Special Report No 19/2013
2012 report on the follow‑up of the European Court of Auditors’ special reports

Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union

2014 — 41 pp. — 21 × 29.7 cm

ISBN 978-92-9241-612-6
doi:10.2865/22257

HOW TO OBTAIN EU PUBLICATIONS

Free publications:

•	

•	

	one	copy: 
via EU Bookshop (http://bookshop.europa.eu);

	more	than	one	copy	or	posters/maps: 
from the European Union’s representations (http://ec.europa.eu/represent_en.htm);  
from the delegations in non-EU countries (http://eeas.europa.eu/delegations/index_en.htm);  
by contacting the Europe Direct service (http://europa.eu/europedirect/index_en.htm) or 
calling 00 800 6 7 8 9 10 11 (freephone number from anywhere in the EU) (*).

(*) 

The information given is free, as are most calls (though some operators, phone boxes or hotels may charge you).

Priced publications:

•	

via	EU	Bookshop	(http://bookshop.europa.eu).

Priced subscriptions:

•	

	via	one	of	the	sales	agents	of	the	Publications	Office	of	the	European	Union 
(http://publications.europa.eu/others/agents/index_en.htm).

Q
J
-
A
B
-
1
4
-
0
1
9
-
E
N

-
C

FOLLOWING  UP THE  COURT’S  PERFORMANCE  AUDIT  REPORTS  IS  A  NECESSARY 

ELEMENT 

IN  THE  CYCLE  OF  ACCOUNTABILITY  AND  HELPS  ENCOURAGE 

THE  EFFECTIVE  IMPLEMENTATION  OF  REPORT  RECOMMENDATIONS  BY  THE 

COMMISSION. THE  CURRENT  REPORT  PRESENTS THE  RESULTS  OF THE  COURT’S 

SECOND  REVIEW  OF  THE  COMMISSION’S  FOLLOW-UP  OF  A  SAMPLE  OF  62 

RECOMMENDATIONS FROM 10 SPECIAL REPORTS FROM THE PERIOD 2006–10.

ON THE  BASIS  OF  ITS  REVIEW THE  COURT  CONCLUDES THAT THE  COMMISSION 

ADEQUATELY  FOLLOWS  UP THE  COURT’S  RECOMMENDATIONS. THE  REVIEW  OF 

THE SAMPLE SHOWED THAT THE COMMISSION HAS IMPLEMENTED 83 % OF THE 

COURT’S  RECOMMENDATIONS,  EITHER  FULLY  OR  IN  MOST  RESPECTS,  WHICH 

HAS  CONTRIBUTED  TOWARDS  IMPROVING  THE  FINANCIAL  MANAGEMENT  IN 

A NUMBER OF AREAS OF THE EU BUDGET.

EUROPEAN COURT OF AUDITORS