The Committee on Budgetary Control unanimously adopted
the own-initiative report by Inés AYALA SENDER (S&D, ES)
on the future role of the Court of Auditors. The procedure on the
appointment of Court of Auditors’ Members: European Parliament
consultation.
Members recalled that under Article 286 of the Treaty
on the Functioning of the European Union, the Members of the Court
of Auditors must be chosen from among persons who belong or have
belonged in their respective Member State to external audit bodies
or who are especially qualified to hold the office in question, and
whose independence is beyond doubt.
Moreover, they stated that some appointments have
given rise to differences of opinion between Parliament and the
Council, the persistence of which risks harming the good
working relations of the Court with the aforementioned
institutions. They recalled in particular that the Council’s
decision to appoint Members to the Court of Auditors in cases where
Parliament has held hearings and expressed unfavourable opinions is
incomprehensible and shows a lack of respect for
Parliament.
It is for this reason that Members proposed a new
procedure on the appointment of Court of Auditors’ Members
based on the European Parliament consultation according to strictly
defined criteria.
Members recalled their vision for the ECA:
- the Court should remain committed to independence,
integrity, impartiality and professionalism, while building strong
working relationships with its partners, particularly the European
Parliament;
- the Court should be able to present to the discharge
authority a midterm review and a summary report in addition to the
annual DAS on the final performance of a programming
period;
- the Court should devote more resources to the
examination of whether economy, effectiveness and efficiency have
been achieved in the use of the public funds entrusted to the
Commission: the results of the findings obtained in Special Reports
should imply corresponding adjustments in EU
programmes;
- the Court, without prejudice to its independence,
should form its opinion on the basis of the materiality threshold
rather than the tolerable error rate alone, since this appears to
be more in line with international audit standards;
- despite increased advisory collaboration with
Parliament and the Council, the Court should, independently of
political or national influence, itself decide on its annual work
programme;
- the Court should to take into consideration the issues
of major interest to EU citizens;
- closer cooperation between national audit institutions
and the European Court of Auditors in connection with the auditing
of shared-management arrangements;
- the Court should synchronise its multiannual work
programme with the MFF and include a midterm review, as well as a
comprehensive review of the Commission's closure of accounts,
regarding the respective MFF;
- economies of scale and scope could be achieved by a
thorough analysis of the resource needs of the Court's Members
(Members called on the Court to regularly communicate statistics on
the presence of Members at its seat in Luxembourg to Parliament's
Budgetary Control Committee);
- an independent public external control report
on the European Financial Stability Facility (EFSF) and the
European Stability Mechanism (ESM).
The procedure on the appointment of Court of Auditors
Members: Members stressed the need
for a Treaty change putting the Council and Parliament on an equal
footing when appointing Members of the Court of Auditors, in
order to ensure the democratic legitimacy, transparency and
complete independence of the Members of the Court of Auditors. The
Council should, in the spirit of good cooperation among the
European Institutions, respect decisions taken by Parliament
subsequent to its hearing. Members called for the European
Parliament, under the next review of the EU Treaty, to be made
responsible for the selection of ECA Members on a proposal from
the Council.
Members took the view that the present geographic
representation rule relating to high-level management, according to
which there may be one Member per Member State, has by far outlived
its initial usefulness and credibility, and that it could be
replaced by a light management structure. Therefore, they proposed
that the Court should have the same number of Members as the
Commission. Members should have, at the least, professional
experience of auditing and management and be especially qualified
for their function, and their independence must be beyond
doubt.
In parallel, Members proposed a new appointment method
regarding the candidates for membership of the Court of Auditors.
It shall be based on the following principles, selection criteria
and procedures:
- hearings will be public and the discussions will be
relayed via video;
- Parliament will take its decisions on the basis of the
majority of the votes cast at the plenary sitting, and its
opinion must be respected by the Council (in the case of a
negative vote , the candidate should withdraw their
candidacy);
- high-level professional experience acquired and high
standards of integrity and morality of the candidate (Members
should not be over 67 years of age at the time of their
appointment);
- they should not serve more than two terms of
office.
Lastly, Members called on the Council to undertake
to:
- present Parliament with at least two candidates from
each Member State, one being a woman and one being a
man;
- frame its proposals in such a way as to comply fully
with the criteria set out in Parliament’s
resolutions;
- pass on any information concerning nominations which
it has received from Member States on the understanding that if it
were to withhold information, Parliament would be obliged to
conduct its own inquiries;
- avoid withdrawing nominations and submitting new ones
which take account of new proposals made by Member States that are
motivated exclusively by political criteria and respect, if
such a case arises, Parliament’s unfavourable opinion of the
situation, and propose a new candidate(s).