EUU, Alm.del - 2016-17 - Bilag 551: Rapport fra Den Europæiske Revisionsret april 2017

Europaudvalget 2016-17
EUU Alm.del Bilag 551
Offentligt

EUU, Alm.del - 2016-17 - Bilag 551: Rapport fra Den Europæiske Revisionsret april 2017

EUU, Alm.del - 2016-17 - Bilag 551: Rapport fra Den Europæiske Revisionsret april 2017

Professor Mario Monti at the European Court

of Auditors

1 March 2017

By Mihails Kozlovs, ECA Member

Professor Mario Moni is the Chairman of the High Level Group on Own Resources.

He has also been Finance Minister and Prime Minister from 2011 to 2013 in Italy.

Professor Moni was invited to the ECA to present the Final report and recommendaions

of the High Level Group on Own Resources (HLGOR). He met the ECA President and

Mihails Kozlovs, the reporing Member for the ECA’s opinion on the revision of the

Muliannual Financial Framework. He also paricipated in a working lunch with the ECA’s

Members.

Professor Mario Monti, Chairman of the High Level Group

on Own Resources and Klaus-Heiner Lehne, ECA President

Mihails Kozlovs, ECA Member and Professor Mario Monti

The debate on the next inancial framework of the EU has started

The HLGOR was established to examine how the revenue side of the EU

budget can be made more simple, transparent, fair and democratically

accountable. The HLGOR’s report is one of many thought provoking

contributions that come at a time when the EU is at the crossroads. The EU

is still dealing with the legacy of inancial crisis. The situation in the world

is getting tenser, isolationism is growing, external threats are becoming

internal. Maintaining Europe’s economic power and values on the world’s

stage is becoming more and more challenging. Existential questions

about EU’s future and strategic directions are being asked.

The EU budget, although relatively small, is often at the centre of the

debate when a need arises to deal with a crisis situation or to inance

(yet another) new priority. So is also the notion of net balances, which is

a permanent feature in the discussions on the EU’s multiannual budget.

According to Professor Monti and his colleagues, and I totally subscribe

to this, net balance calculations do not relect the real distribution of

costs and beneits of the EU budget, but tend to ignore its economic,

EUU, Alm.del - 2016-17 - Bilag 551: Rapport fra Den Europæiske Revisionsret april 2017

Professor Mario Monti at the European Court of Auditors

continued

social, political and cross-border impacts, including security. One of the

examples is inancial instruments, the share of which in EU expenditure

is steadily growing. Without geographical pre-allocation as a condition

(that I do not necessarily support

per se),

the funding logically lows to

places where investments are more viable and economic environment

is more reassuring for investors, and for the moment these places tend

to be in wealthier EU countries (as is the case with the EFSI). This is

not being relected in the net balance calculations and shows us that

this notion of net balances is outdated and is not conducive to a full

appreciation of all the actions taken at the EU level.

The HLGOR report illustrates this problem very well and rightly calls for

a new understanding of “collective beneits of EU policies, economic

synergies, cross-border efects and positive external outcomes”. I fully

share this view.

Although the main gist of the HLGOR report is to put forward for

the discussion the new types of EU’s own resources, it also rightly

underlines the need for comprehensive reforms on the EU budget’s

expenditure side.

This proposal resonates very well with the ECA’s suggestion in the

context of the mid-term review of the EU’s Multiannual Financial

Framework 2014 -2020. In our brieing paper we invited the decision

makers to launch a relection as soon as possible on the extent to

which the diferent EU policies should be inanced from EU budget,

taking into account the possible developments in the policies and

membership of the EU. We called for a budget that relects the EU’s

strategic priorities and opportunities to add value, a budget that is

better shaped for new challenges and delivers results eiciently.

There are many now who call for changes in the way EU budget is

managed. Circumstances and priorities change, membership in the EU

is being questioned. To me that means the time is right to reform the

EU budget and I would like to hope that the real debate on its future

starts very soon.

In this context I can only welcome the White Paper on the future of

Europe by the President of the European Commission published on

1 March this year. Both items are related and I hope the White Paper

together with the HLGOR report will ignite this debate. I wish the

decision makers to have the courage to make tough but needed

decisions, some of which are long overdue.

Mario Monti said:

“The recommended reform of the

EU budget will have also broader

implications but accountability

towards EU citizens is in fact a very

important one. I am honoured and

pleased to be today visiting the

European Court of Auditors because

in our report we have been closely

following some longstanding

recommendations of the ECA.

This goes in the direction of making

the EU even more accountable to

citizens” (R.C.).

EUU, Alm.del - 2016-17 - Bilag 551: Rapport fra Den Europæiske Revisionsret april 2017

Standard-setting in INTOSAI – a brief explanation

By Neil Usher, principal adviser and the ECA PSC project team

Front row (LtR)

Karen Belteton Mohr, Member of FIPP, SAI Guatemala;

Shelmadene Petzer, Member of FIPP, SAI South Africa;

Ganga Kapavarapu, Chair FIPP, SAI India;

Danièle Lamarque, Member of the Court,

SAI European Union;

Lionel Vareille Member of FIPP, SAI France;

Josephine Mukomba, Member of FIPP, AFROSAI-E;

Rear row (LtR)

Neil Usher, Member of FIPP, SAI European Union;

Robert Cox, Member of FIPP, SAI New Zealand;

Einar G

rrissen Member of FIPP, INTOSAI

Development Initiative (IDI);

Stuart Barr, Member of FIPP, SAI Canada;

Kristofer Blegvad, Member of FIPP, SAI Denmark;

Beryl Davis, Member of FIPP, SAI United States of America;

Novy Pelenkahu, Member of FIPP, SAI Indonesia

The internal workings of INTOSAI are, at irst sight, quite complex. Here’s a brief guide to its

standard-setting activities.

INTOSAI’s strategic plan groups its activities under three broad goals – professional

standards, capacity building and knowledge sharing – and there is a committee for each

of these areas that steers the activities. The chairs of these committees – the three “goal

chairs” – also work closely together to assure progress on cross-cutting themes. There is

also a fourth committee that deals with policy, inance and administration, but we’ll leave

that aside for now.

The ECA took on the role of vice-chair of the professional standards committee – the PSC –

late last year, working closely with the SAI of Brazil that chairs the committee.

One of the three main functions of the PSC is to ensure that INTOSAI’s professional

standards and supporting guidance – its professional pronouncements - are relevant to

the work of SAIs, of the highest quality and are the framework of choice for SAIs world-

wide. The main tool for achieving this is “due process

”, the set of procedures and controls

designed to build quality and relevance into the standard-setting process. In the light

of feedback from key external stakeholders – most notably, the World Bank, which relies

heavily on reports of SAIs – due process has just been substantially revised. The PSC chair

and vice-chair, with the help of the other goal chairs, have the task of implementing the

changes.

1 See

http://psc-intosai.org/en_us/site-psc/psc/due-process/

EUU, Alm.del - 2016-17 - Bilag 551: Rapport fra Den Europæiske Revisionsret april 2017

Standard-setting in INTOSAI – a brief explanation

continued

As part of the revised due process, there is a new actor in the game. This is the Forum for

INTOSAI Professional Pronouncements (FIPP

), INTOSAI’s standard-setting board. FIPP has

a chair and 15 members drawn from and supported by SAIs and other INTOSAI bodies

but who act not as representatives of their SAIs but in the overall interest of the INTOSAI

community. As well as monitoring individual standard-setting projects, FIPP also acts as

the “single gateway” to the process by advising the PSC on the priority to give to each

proposed standard-setting project. This brings us to the second main function of the

PSC – it is responsible for the governance of FIPP. Meanwhile, the three goal chairs, acting

collectively, are responsible for managing FIPP’s membership.

As part of due process, the projects that FIPP gives priority to are rolled up together into

the three-year INTOSAI strategic development plan (SDP

). As part of its due process

responsibilities, the PSC approves this plan and ensures that it is implemented. For

2017 -2019, the SDP is focusing on rationalising and simplifying the present collection

of INTOSAI pronouncements to arrive at the new INTOSAI Framework of Professional

Pronouncements, the IFPP

The work of preparing draft pronouncements and getting comments on them from

stakeholders (“exposure”) is done by INTOSAI’s sub-committees and working groups,

who each report to one of the three goal committees. The third main function of the PSC

is thus to oversee the work of its four sub-committees – those responsible for inancial

audit and accounting (FAAS), for performance audit (PAS), for compliance audit (CAS) and

for internal control (ICS). As well as being vice-chair of the PSC, the Court is also an active

player in the work of FAAS, PAS and CAS.

For more information about FIPP, the IFPP, the SDP and much more, try the PSC website at

http://www.psc-intosai.org/.

Finally, for a light-hearted historical perspective of all this, you might want to watch a

video called “XXII INCOSAI - The journey so far” produced by the former chair of the PSC,

the SAI of Denmark, and available at

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IjuqFJKW_tE.

2 See

http://psc-intosai.org/en_us/site-psc/psc/ipp/

3 See

http://psc-intosai.org/en_us/site-psc/psc/strategic-development-plan/

4 See

http://www.issai.org/en_us/site-issai/services/revised-framework/

EUU, Alm.del - 2016-17 - Bilag 551: Rapport fra Den Europæiske Revisionsret april 2017

The Forum for INTOSAI

Professional Pronouncements

Interview with Ganga Kapavarapu, Chair FIPP, SAI India

By Rosmarie Carotti

Ganga Kapavarapu, Chair FIPP, SAI India

R. C.: What is new in the Forum for Professional Pronouncements compared to the

Professional Standards Committee?

Ganga Kapavarapu:

We have a board for the standards to be approved, it is the

Professional Standards Committee of the INTOSAI. Its primary objective was to bring

about professionalism in the standards and the way we conduct audit in the various

SAIs. It is the strategic objective of the PSC to have standards in place but the standards

are developed by the three co-chairs and the various sub-committees, task-forces and

working groups under them. They follow a particular process of preparing a project

report, preparing an initial draft, exposing it to the INTOSAI community and getting their

input, then taking it to the INCOSAI inally for endorsement and approval.

R. C.: How long does such a process take?

Ganga Kapavarapu:

It depends on the kind of standard and its complexity. Some

standards take very long, some standards would probably happen from one INTOSAI

Congress (INCOSAI) to the next. Normally, an INCOSAI is once in three years. In that

timeframe the committees and the working groups work on these standards.

Every time a standard is set there is a maintenance schedule for it. Standards come up for

a review and changes over a speciied periodicity.

R. C.: So what’s new with the Forum?

Ganga Kapavarapu:

What happened was that there was no one single gateway for

approval of all the standards. There was a little diference in the way the approval process

was taking place in the sub-committees and working groups working under the three

goalchairs and there were issues of overlap and duplication. So it was decided that there

should be one single gateway. The INCOSAI made us a permanent body.

EUU, Alm.del - 2016-17 - Bilag 551: Rapport fra Den Europæiske Revisionsret april 2017

The Forum for INTOSAI

Professional Pronouncements

continued

R. C.: So you report directly to INCOSAI.

Ganga Kapavarapu:

No, there is a governance structure over the FIPP because there

is a PSC Steering Committee which consists of the PSC and other goal chairs and

representatives.

We have one governance framework which deines how we interact with the three goal

chairs and the PSC and how all the documents or the approvals will move through that to

the governing board and to the Congress.

R. C.: That sounds terribly complicated while the aim of the FIPP is to simplify and

reduce the number of ISSAIs.

Ganga Kapavarapu:

There is simpliication and reduction because we have reviewed all

the existing standards and we help in the formulation of a new tool called the strategic

development plan. The SDP is drawn up for three years.

R. C.: This plan is already made?

Ganga Kapavarapu:

Yes. We have tried to identify standards which appeared to be

duplicates or overlaps. They will be replaced by a single one. Some documents do not

need to ind a place in the framework, the IFPP . The numbers will therefore be reduced by

the next Congress in 2019.

There were problems with many drafting conventions or the way the standards were

aligned. ISSAI 100 was developed later and our task is to review every standard and align it

with ISSAI 100. The quality of the ISSAIs will improve and their number will be reduced.

A number of earlier documents, the so-called INTOSAI GOVs, were not addressing the

auditor or the auditor’s institution but the governance set-up. Those documents will

disappear and we only take the valuable content in them into the standards.

Earlier we had institutional level, auditor level and government level. Now we decided

that the IFPP is meant for the auditing institutions and the auditors.

R. C.: The Forum was established in Abu Dhabi last year and this is your 4

meeting.

Ganga Kapavarapu:

This is the Forum’s 4

meeting after we became a permanent body.

December 2015 we met for the irst time. Then we met in South Africa and the third

meeting was in India. The three goal chairs hosted the three meetings.

The irst meeting was very important because we met the external standards setter. We

met IFAC, the Institute of Internal Auditors, the World Bank and the United Nations. We got

inputs from them as to what their expectations are and we learned how these external

standard setters do their work. The irst meeting was to understand what we can take

from others.

R. C.: What do you expect from this meeting in Luxembourg?

Ganga Kapavarapu:

The Forum has now a very important role in shaping the strategic

development plan (SDP). All the chairs in the working groups gave us inputs and we

prioritised them. Now we have an approved SDP which we have to implement in these

three years.

EUU, Alm.del - 2016-17 - Bilag 551: Rapport fra Den Europæiske Revisionsret april 2017

The Forum for INTOSAI

Professional Pronouncements

continued

For that, while the sub-committees and working groups under the respective goal chairs

will be working on it, they have to send it to us at the various stages so that we see that

there is no duplication or overlap and that the quality is good. We look at the timeline so

that the job will be completed by 2019. For that, in this meeting we will irst run through

the SDP and decide which areas to prioritise. Amongst us we are also going to nominate

liaison oicers, one of each of our group members.

Then, of course, there are many doubts in the working groups and sub-committees as to

how to work. Is there a template, a format, are there guidelines? We are going to have a list

of frequently asked questions; then we will come up with our own working procedures.

We have already been working by e-mail and have drafted some procedures which

hopefully will be discussed in this meeting.

Another document we want to produce is our communication policy for our internal

stakeholders and the outside world.

R. C.: What do you mean by “outside world”?

Ganga Kapavarapu:

It may be the World Bank, the UN, other standard setting bodies like

the IASSB; they all are stakeholders. How do we interact with them? Where do we put all

our content and data and information?

R. C.. How long is your mandate as chair of the Forum for INTOSAI Professional

Pronouncements?

Ganga Kapavarapu:

There is a policy document regarding the constitution of the Forum.

There is a rotation policy by which one third of the Forum will change once in three years.

There is also a provision for people who want to stay on for another term.

R. C.: To conclude, one personal question to you as deputy Comptroller and Auditor

General of India. How many audit oices are there in India?

Ganga Kapavarapu:

India is a big federal country, so we have the central government of

the Union and governments in the 30 states. In each of those states we have oices and in

many of these states three or more of them. They all report ultimately to the Comptroller

and Auditor General. So we are about 40 000 just doing audit work alone.

R. C.: Your last message from the 4

Working Meeting of FIPP.

Ganga Kapavarapu:

We plan to come out with working procedures and a

communication policy; we will hopefully appoint liaison oicers and introduce drafting

conventions.

EUU, Alm.del - 2016-17 - Bilag 551: Rapport fra Den Europæiske Revisionsret april 2017

Performance audit on the Single European Sky:

ECA audit team meets their counterparts in

Washington to discuss diferences and similarities

in European and North-American Air Traic

Management

By Afonso Malheiro, auditor in Chamber II

(Meeting with the OIG, 7 February 2017 – Left to right: Mircea Radulescu, Frank Danielski, Arnett Sanders,

Terry Letko, Aaron Malinof, George Pufan, Patrick Weldon, Pietro Puricella, Afonso Malheiro, Nate Custer,

Erki Must, James Ovelmen and Matt Hampton)

Did you ever board an aeroplane well in advance of the scheduled departure time,

together with all your fellow passengers, everyone seated and waiting… only to hear

the Captain announcing that ‘Ladies

and Gentlemen, sorry but we have to wait another 15

minutes before we can leave the gate and start the engines’?

Or did you ever feel, while on

approach to your destination airport, that the aeroplane kept doing a lot of turns but did

not really progress down to the runway? Read on…

Every day around up to 30 000 lights take of or land in Europe, some 10 million per year.

Despite the vastness of the airspace above us, congestion exists in certain areas at certain

times, particularly around major airports. The problem is that you cannot simply tell pilots

to stop in the middle of the air, or queue the way drivers do every morning on the way to

Luxembourg or Brussels. It doesn’t work, technically or economically. Congestion, if not

properly managed, causes additional costs, delays and seriously impacts on the safety of

air travel. Often, it is preferable to keep your light on the ground instead of burning fuel

lying in circles over London. Nice photo opportunities but expensive ones.

Air Traic Management (ATM) is the result of a quest for safety and eiciency in a

context of growing traic and limited space. Since 2004, through the “Single European

Sky” initiative, the European Union has been dedicating considerable efort towards

the improvement of ATM, be it in the form of regulatory measures (which before were

mostly national) or in the form of substantial funding for research and implementation of

modern technologies. Things like precise navigation, allowing planes to be packed closer

together in a safe manner. Or collaborative decision making between airports, airlines and

air traic controllers, so that once a plane gets airborne out of Madrid, the ground handler

in Helsinki is able to accurately predict the minute when that plane will arrive at the gate.

EUU, Alm.del - 2016-17 - Bilag 551: Rapport fra Den Europæiske Revisionsret april 2017

Performance audit on the Single European Sky: ECA audit

team meets their counterparts in Washington to discuss

diferences and similarities in European and North-American

Air Traic Management

continued

Now, 12 years and 1 billion EU funding euros later (with another 2 billion in the

pipeline until 2020), the performance auditor is of course asking the fundamental

question: is this investment paying of? Are we experiencing fewer delays, are

lights more direct, has the cost of ATM become cheaper? We are working on

these complex questions, stay tuned for some interesting answers soon.

Fortunately, we are not alone. Across the Atlantic, the United States have

been facing very similar challenges: growing traic, limited airspace, ageing

systems and congestion. And like us in Europe, they also committed substantial

amounts of money into a modernisation programme called “NextGen”. The

approximately 7 billion USD spent there (2004-2016) have also attracted the

attention of American audit bodies: dozens of audits on this topic have been

conducted either by the US Governmental Accounting Oice (GAO) or the Oice

of the Inspector General of the Department of Transportation (OIG). In order to

discuss their experiences, their audit approach and their main conclusions, the

audit team, led by the reporting Member Mr Pufan, travelled to Washington in

February and held several meetings with oicials from the OIG and GAO, the

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and representatives from ENO – a think

tank dedicated to transportation. The visit proved extremely useful as it allowed

us to explore not only the diferences between the US and Europe (ATM in the

US is provided by one single entity, the FAA, whilst in Europe we have almost 40

operators), but also important similarities (the enormous technical challenges in

implementing modern technologies in such a safety critical activity as aviation,

the large amounts of funding involved and the importance of ensuring and

measuring value for money in this ield). We also discussed a range of related

topics, including how the FAA and the European Commission coordinate

their eforts, how ATM performance can be measured and how does air traic

controller productivity compare between the two regions. Interestingly, the visit

coincided with a period of “turbulence” for the FAA, which is facing calls for a

change in its governance (towards corporatization, similarly to what has been

done in Europe) as well as public criticism from the new US President as to the

value for money of its NextGen programme.

All should soon feed into our upcoming report highlighting the challenges

in arriving at a Single European Sky and what we hope will be some relevant

recommendations on how to potentially overcome them.

EUU, Alm.del - 2016-17 - Bilag 551: Rapport fra Den Europæiske Revisionsret april 2017

The IMF Capacity Development

Presentation by Gerd Schwartz, deputy head of the IMF’s Institute

for Capacity Development

By Rosmarie Carotti

From left to right: Felix Fischer, Deputy Division Chief, Global Partnerships Division, ICD;

Gerd Schwartz, Deputy Director of the IMF‘s Institute for Capacity Development (ICD) ;

Zacharias Kolias, ECA director; Gunnar Magnusson, Senior TA Oicer, Global Partnerships Division, ICD

Introduction

The IMF shares its expertise with member countries by providing capacity development

(CD), which includes technical assistance and training in a wide range of areas such as central

banking, monetary and exchange rate policy, tax policy and administration and oicial

statistics.

The aim of capacity development is to help improve the design and implementation of IMF

members' economic policies. Gerd Schwartz provided more speciic insights and views on

capacity development (CD) in cooperation and partnership with the European institutions.

The idea for this presentation grew from the fact that the ECA encounters what the IMF does

in CD because it audits some of the projects where the IMF cooperates with the European

Commission. The European Commission is the second largest partner in terms of external CD

funding. The ECA audits the Commission funds and the part of them which goes to the IMF.

Zacharias Kolias, ECA director responsible for Regulation of markets and competitive

economy, introduced the speaker and moderated the discussion between the panel and the

audience.

EUU, Alm.del - 2016-17 - Bilag 551: Rapport fra Den Europæiske Revisionsret april 2017

EUU, Alm.del - 2016-17 - Bilag 551: Rapport fra Den Europæiske Revisionsret april 2017

EUU, Alm.del - 2016-17 - Bilag 551: Rapport fra Den Europæiske Revisionsret april 2017

Japan’s Board of Audit and Japanese policies

H.E. Shigeji Suzuki, Japan’s Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary Ambassador to

Luxembourg was received by ECA President Klaus-Heiner Lehne and ECA Secretary

general, Eduardo Ruiz Garcia.

8 March 2017

By Rosmarie Carotti

H.E. Shigeji Suzuki and President

Klaus-Heiner Lehne

Secretary general, Eduardo Ruiz Garcia; President Klaus-Heiner Lehne

and H.E. Shigeji Suzuki

ECA President Klaus-Heiner Lehne explained that the competences of the Japanese

Embassy in Luxembourg cover not only Luxembourg but also the ECA. Therefore the

Japanese Embassy in Luxembourg and not the Japanese Embassy to the EU in Brussels is

in charge of the relations with the ECA.

Nobody better than H.E. Shigeji Suzuki could give an insight into how the BOA works, of

its impact on Japanese policies, and the impact of its audit work on the Japanese society.

All of this combined with a deep understanding of the EU and its institutions.

H.E. Shigeji Suzuki gave an overview on the history of the BOA and its work. The

annual report of the institution is presented by its President to the Prime Minister every

November. The report is also forwarded to the Parliament and receives great attention

from the media. Besides the annual report, the BOA produces around ten special reports

per year.

H.E. Shigeji Suzuki discussed three major policy areas of the Japanese government:

The energy policy;

The counter-policy on inancial/solvency crises;

Flexible subsidies to local governments.

Energy policy is a world-wide issue and Japan is also committed to it. The Japanese

government has encouraged investing in new renewable energy and promotes

private solar electricity generation after the Tsunami and the nuclear plant accident of

Fukushima in 2011.

EUU, Alm.del - 2016-17 - Bilag 551: Rapport fra Den Europæiske Revisionsret april 2017

Japan’s Board of Audit and Japanese policies

continued

There are also other common problems like inancial crises. The Lehman shock was not the

irst.

Heisei

is the current era in Japan. Since 1997 Japan has sufered from negative growth

of its economy, the so-called ”Heisei Depression”. Regional banks collapsed one after

another, and Government decided to publically inance banks with solvency risks. Since

1998 64 inancial institutions have received 104 billion euro to strengthen equity and the

BOA continues to audit this inancial remedy for private banks.

Unlike the ECA, in fact, the BOA can also audit private banks where public money is

involved. And in its recent 2016 report money redundancy was recorded in the public

account of bank remedy. The BOA called for an efective use of this redundant money

stock.

Decentralisation is another main political issue in Japan where before all was regulated

centrally. This implies a shift from regulatory audit towards performance audit. Local

governments can now decide how to spend national allowances. BOA requests them to

check by themselves whether they spend wisely. One example of the subsidy scheme for

local municipalities is the development of Okinawa.

H.E. Shigeji Suzuki’s presentation was followed by a Q&A session and ended with an

invitation to us, in the ECA, to attend the Olympic and Para-Olympic games 2020 in Tokyo.

H.E. Shigeji Suzuki, Japan’s Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary Ambassador to Luxembourg

EUU, Alm.del - 2016-17 - Bilag 551: Rapport fra Den Europæiske Revisionsret april 2017

The power of positive leaders

3 March 2017

A presentation to all ECA Members, Directors and Principal Managers by Jan Mühlfeit, former

Chairman of Microsoft Europe. Jan Mühlfeit is now a global strategist, coach and mentor and recently

published the book “The Positive Leader”

By Rosmarie Carotti

From left to right: Dieter Boeckem, ECA senior administrator;

Jan Mühlfeit, the former Chairman of Microsoft Europe, is now

a global strategist, coach and mentor; Jan Gregor, ECA Member;

Eduardo Ruiz García, ECA secretary general

Jan Mühlfeit, a Czech manager, was introduced by Jan Gregor, ECA Member. Performance and

how to motivate people are crucial aspects for leaders. This goes for the ECA as well, where

motivating people is to the fore after the implementation of the ECA reform, said the ECA

Member.

Jan Mühlfeit focused on human potential. Grounded in positive psychology, his model of the

4Ps

of Positive Leadership

provides a workable system for any kind of leader and organisation.

The 4Ps of Positive Leadership

Positive People (The ‘Who’)

– Discover and work to your strengths.

Positive Purpose (The ‘Why’)

– Identify your mission and vision.

Positive Process (The ‘How’)

– Manage energy, not time (become a ‘Chief Energy Oicer’).

Positive Place (The ‘Where’)

– Lead yourself to happiness, and success will follow.

The basis of everything is self-awareness, without which it is not possible to understand other

people. And we have to focus on strengths rather than on weaknesses. This starts in school

where the methodology has not changed for ages and where correcting weaknesses rather

than building strengths is common practice. People should spend more time on things they can

succeed in. Talent, however, is only a potential and needs investment in learning and thinking.

EUU, Alm.del - 2016-17 - Bilag 551: Rapport fra Den Europæiske Revisionsret april 2017

Often a plan is started before iguring out the mission. Leadership needs to igure out what is

best for people and has to have a vision. Emotional inspiration answers the basic question why

to do something. Having a meaning in life and making a meaningful contribution is a powerful

driver of performance.

Leaders have little time and need to manage their energy. Physical itness, emotional

inspiration, mental attention and spiritual purpose as well as mindfulness, which means staying

focussed in the present without judging what is happening around, will be useful tools.

What is the road to happiness? Happiness is not one inal point or moment in time, it is “the

overall pleasure you experience while on the path to unlocking your potential”.

Jan Mühlfeit stresses: “If people are able to leverage their talent and their strengths, they will

not only be more productive and successful, but also happier. Unlocking human potential is a

mantra for me personally, because I think that if we better utilise the best in us, we will manage

to create a better world for all.”

Jan Mühlfeit’s outlook on the young generation is positive. He calls this generation disrupted

because it is unlike any other previous generation. The young generation of today is the irst of

its kind to understand the uses of new technology and to follow its change better than older

generations. Soon the young generation will take the lead in the decision-making process.

Technology, however, Jan Mühlfeit feels, will not change what we do but how we will do it. And

the digital paradox will be that brain will be even more important than in the past.

The personal mission will require strength, personal values and passion from leaders as well as

unlocking human potential and combining the diferent strengths of people in a team.

Members‘ meeting room

EUU, Alm.del - 2016-17 - Bilag 551: Rapport fra Den Europæiske Revisionsret april 2017

The inancial crisis in Spain:

Bank restructuring and the supervisory role

of the Central Bank

10 March 2017

By Simon Dennett, private oice of Baudilio Tomé Muguruza, ECA Member

From left to right: Javier Corral, Director of the Audit bank restructuring process;

Angel Fernandez Fernandez, Director of the Audit Spanish Bank supervisory function;

Juan Carlos López López, Technical Director of the Department;

Javier Medina, Member of the Full Session; Baudilio Tomé Muguruza, ECA Member

Baudilio Tomé Muguruza, ECA Member, chaired this session in which the Spanish Tribunal de

Cuentas (TCu) presented two of its recent audits on the inancial crisis in Spain; one on the bank

restructuring process and the other on the supervisory function of the Bank of Spain in 2015, one

year before supervision for systemic banks was passed over to the ECB. In the afternoon work went

on with the ECA’s Financial and Economic Governance (FEG) team responsible for banking audits.

The session began with a short introduction from Tomé Muguruza, after which the history and

organisation of the Tribunal de Cuentas, its work, and the two audits, were introduced by Member of

the Full Session, Javier Medina Guijarro, and Director of Financial Bodies, Carlos Lopez.

The irst measures to ofset the ‘housing bubble’ and the inancial crisis were taken in 2008. The

following year a Fund for orderly bank restructuring was created, which evolved in three stages:

integration process of savings banks; taking a stake in the banks; and inancial assistance from ESFS.

In 2013 a change of legislation opened the possibility for the TCu to audit the Bank of Spain, with

the objectives of verifying that the actions taken were in compliance with the regulations and to

estimate the public cost of the bank restructuring process. It found that in general the regulations

were followed and the cumulative cost estimation as of 2015 was € 61bn.

With regard to the supervisory role of the Central Bank, the presentation included a description of

the Bank’s new role in supervising the banking sector now that the ECB has assumed a supervisory

role through the Single Supervisory Mechanism (SSM). For instance, the Spanish Central Bank has

competencies regarding the launching of macro-prudential actions, in monitoring inancial bodies’

conduct towards clients, and carrying out the supervision of entities other than credit institutions.

The audit report found that the Spanish Central Bank’s structure was modiied to allow it to adapt to

its new functions, including the important separation of functions. Further, the Central Bank fulilled

all its legal obligations regarding supervision and transparency.

EUU, Alm.del - 2016-17 - Bilag 551: Rapport fra Den Europæiske Revisionsret april 2017

In Memoriam

Paul Gaudy,

ancien Membre de la Cour

du18 octobre 1977 au 17 octobre 1987

Nous avons le regret de vous annoncer le décès de M. Paul Gaudy,

ancien Membre de la Cour, survenu le 20 janvier 2017.

Avant de rejoindre la Cour des comptes européenne, M. Paul Gaudy avait

été commissaire aux comptes de la CECA et membre de la commission de

contrôle des Communautés européennes.

En sa mémoire, nous publions un entretien extrait du livre édité à l’occasion

des 35 ans de la Cour des comptes européenne.

Je crois en une collaboration plus

eicace entre le contrôle interne et le

contrôle externe

Par Rosmarie Carotti

R. C.: M. Gaudy, merci d’être venu pour nous parler des débuts de notre Cour. Nous aimerions mieux

connaître ses origines car, si nous avons une histoire, nous pouvons mieux nous identiier avec notre

institution. Vous avez été commissaire aux comptes de la CECA et membre de la commission de

contrôle des Communautés européennes.

M. Paul Gaudy:

En efet, nous sommes in 1971. Ces deux fonctions sont exercées telles qu’elles sont prévues

dans les textes des traités de Paris et de Rome sans qu’une précision fut jamais apportée.

Le Conseil a simplement prévu le nombre et la durée des mandats respectifs de deux ans pour la CECA et de

cinq ans pour la Commission de contrôle.

Les obligations de ces contrôleurs se limitent à la rédaction d’un rapport annuel contenant leurs

observations sans qu’une suite ne soit prévue: ces observations sont destinées aux Institutions contrôlées.

La fusion des Exécutifs en a modiié les compétences: le fonctionnement de l’ensemble des Institutions est

conié à la Commission de contrôle, le Commissaire aux comptes de la CECA restant en charge du contrôle

opérationnel de l’Institution.

Le renouvellement des deux mandats coniés à un Belge se heurta au changement d’activité professionnelle

du titulaire qui du être remplacé.

C’est l’époque où, au sein du Conseil et de l’Assemblée parlementaire il est question du renforcement du

contrôle externe et déjà un schéma de Cour des comptes est envisagé à terme.

La Belgique proita de l’occasion pour manifester dans les faits ce qu’elle défendait avec d’autres pays dans

les projets de textes. Un accord sur la permanence du contrôle était pratiquement acquis.

En présentant ma candidature, la Belgique m’avait obligé à me consacrer full time au cumul de ces deux

activités.

EUU, Alm.del - 2016-17 - Bilag 551: Rapport fra Den Europæiske Revisionsret april 2017

In Memoriam Paul Gaudy

continued

Du côté du Conseil, ma candidature a été jugée d’autant plus favorable du fait que depuis une douzaine

d’années j’avais exercé exclusivement des fonctions dans les groupes inanciers du Conseil chargés de

rédiger ab initio les règlementations inancières non seulement administratives mais aférentes à toutes les

politiques communes progressivement mises sur pied.

R. C.: Pourtant je crois que l’élément essentiel du changement voulu était la nouvelle indépendance

de cet organe qui allait se former et qui était notre Cour des comptes.

M. Paul Gaudy:

Certainement en matière d’indépendance le Conseil s’est limité à prendre en compte la

nature de l’activité professionnelle principale des candidats, activité qui a généralement présenté des

garanties suisantes, ce qui a été conirmé dans les faits.

R. C.: Au début il était important de créer une Cour des comptes européenne aussi pour renforcer le

rôle du Parlement européen.

M. Paul Gaudy:

C’est précisément cet élément-là qui a été décisif dans le long cheminement politique de

cette époque.

On se trouve devant la volonté de l’Assemblée parlementaire de dépasser son rôle d’avis pour pouvoir

participer, à l’égal des autres Institutions, au système décisionnel des politiques communes et de la politique

budgétaire.

Les acquis des politiques communes et la récente mise sur pied du système des ressources propres donnent

à l’Assemblée un argument supplémentaire d’intervention, d’autant que de ce côté la transformation de

l’Assemblée en Parlement était une revendication du même ordre.

Mais du côté du Conseil, les réticences se irent jour quant à une passation de pouvoir trop importante et

c’est inalement dans le domaine du contrôle que se dirigèrent les solutions envisagées. C’est ainsi qu’un

système plus développé de contrôle externe surtout permanent fut envisagé et qu’il fut déjà à l’époque

question de Cour des comptes.

R. C.: Vous parlez de inancement direct des Communautés, c’est à dire à travers les ressources

propres traditionnelles, TVA incluse. Aujourd’hui on revient en arrière, à un système de contribution

des États membres.

M. Paul Gaudy:

Cette décision de inancement direct constitue un acquis politique important dans

l’intégration européenne puisqu’il s’agit d’un dépouillement des attributions des États membres.

Ce système, déjà en vigueur à la CECA, a aussi évité des discussions byzantines connues pendant la période

antérieure chaque fois qu’il s’agissait de répartir les charges entre les États membres. On peut donc dire qu’on

l’abandonnant il s’agit d’un net recul du point de vue politique.

R. C.:

Aujourd’hui l’on parle beaucoup d’audit de la performance et à l’époque?

M. Paul Gaudy:

Comme indiqué plus haut, les traités ont été fort laconiques sur la mission réelle du contrôle

externe. Ils ont malgré tout envisagé la notion de “bonne gestion inancière”.

C’est la Cour des comptes qui a essayé d’interpréter de la façon la plus large possible cette notion tout en se

heurtant à la prétention de la Commission de se réserver les décisions d’opportunité comme non discutables.

Avant la Cour, ce problème ne fut pas réellement discuté ainsi qu’on peut le voir dans l’état du contrôle avant

la création de la Cour, état décrit dans un ouvrage intéressant du Directeur Général Hehlerman, jugeant la

façon dont était exercé le contrôle dans la Communauté.

R. C.:

Quelle est la valeur ajoutée de notre Cour des comptes? Quel est son futur?

EUU, Alm.del - 2016-17 - Bilag 551: Rapport fra Den Europæiske Revisionsret april 2017

In Memoriam Paul Gaudy

continued

M. Paul Gaudy:

Personnellement, ainsi que je le disais au Président de la Cour, je crois en une collaboration

plus eicace entre contrôle interne et contrôle externe.

Les circonstances ont fait et font encore que le domaine du contrôle externe ne cesse de s’agrandir tant dans

le champ d’application de ce contrôle que dans l’aire géographique où il s’exerce.

D’autre part, la gestion des politiques communes est généralement initiée dans les États membres par les

administrations nationales qui inancièrement appliquent en premier lieu les décisions de inancement

communautaire.

L’accession aux faits devient ainsi extrêmement compliquée si aucun relais ne se trouve entre le début

d’exécution et l’arrivée dans les comptes communautaires.

C’est la raison pour laquelle, personnellement, je crois à l’importance des relations entre contrôles internes et

externes nationaux et contrôles internes et externes communautaires.

R. C.:

Vous êtes donc favorable à un modèle de contrôle unique.

M. Paul Gaudy:

C’est nécessaire, si l’on veut avoir une vue globale du coût des activités et même des

politiques elles-mêmes puisque l’aspect inancier est généralement déterminant.

Les collaborations dans une aire géographique agrandie sont donc essentielles pour que la Cour puisse avoir

un jugement global des activités communautaires.

R. C.: La Cour des comptes européenne déjà participe à des réunions avec les Institutions

supérieures de contrôle des États membres.

M. Paul Gaudy:

Comme je l’ai montré, non seulement les contacts doivent exister entre contrôle externe

des divers pays et la Cour, mais le contrôle lui-même doit être organisé en tenant compte des diférentes

interventions qui mettent en jeu le contrôle interne national avec justiications vis-à-vis de son contrôle

externe pour que, compte tenu des compétences complémentaires, un jugement inal intéressant puisse être

donné.

Du côté de la Communauté, j’estime que la Cour devrait pouvoir, dans un futur aussi proche que possible,

avoir un droit de regard plus direct sur le contrôle interne exercé dans la Communauté.

Cette responsabilité de contrôle interne devrait être directe vis-à-vis d’une Cour, véritable Institution de

contrôle externe.

R. C.: Envers le Parlement européen, notre fonction est l’information, mais vous venez de dire qu’elle

n’est pas complète.

M. Paul Gaudy:

Certes, l’information du Parlement européen est essentielle et c’est là une justiication

supplémentaire de ce que je viens d’exposer. Comment est-il possible du côté de la Cour d’informer

totalement si un système global n’est pas établi?

R. C.:

Que pensez-vous de l’augmentation du nombre des pays dans l’EU

M. Paul Gaudy: L’augmentation du nombre de pays, problème politique qui s’impose à nous, pose pour

la Cour comme pour toutes les autres Institutions, le problème d’organisation interne dans la gestion

quotidienne. Je crois qu’au début nous avions déjà constitué des groupes partiels de membres chargés d’un

même domaine de contrôle.

R. C.:

Quels sont vos souhaits pour la Constitution européenne?

M. Paul Gaudy:

Bien sûr, je souhaite qu’il y en ait une mais ceci est un problème strictement politique et

même si l’on considère que, le nombre de pays augmentant, une constitution devient de plus en plus diicile

à réaliser.

De surcroît des problèmes nouveaux sont généralement soulevés par tel ou tel État proitant de l’occasion

pour remettre en cause certains acquis. Cette forme de remise en cause n’est pas seulement le fait de pays

EUU, Alm.del - 2016-17 - Bilag 551: Rapport fra Den Europæiske Revisionsret april 2017

In Memoriam Paul Gaudy

continued

arrivés récemment mais est également coutumière de pays fondateurs comme on l’a connu à certaines

occasions antérieurement (chaise vide, adhésion manquée....).

R. C.:

N’avons nous pas tiré des leçons du passé?

M. Paul Gaudy:

D’une façon générale, ce que je viens de dire pour la Constitution s’est présenté plusieurs fois

dans le passé et on n’en a pas tiré vraiment les conséquences. Cette remise en cause des abandons nationaux

tend à se reproduire au contraire dans les grands événements de la Communauté.

Actuellement, les medias se soucient beaucoup plus des problèmes européens, ce qu’ils n’ont pas fait au

départ. Dès lors, l’opinion publique joue un rôle aujourd’hui qu’elle n’a jamais eu au début.

De plus, l’organisation de la gestion des afaires en collaboration entre administrations nationales et

communautaires fait qu’une catégorie plus importante de citoyens sont confrontés aux obligations

communes et donc à la politique commune.

R. C.:

Ce n’était pas si longtemps après la guerre, il y avait le souvenir de la guerre, des idéaux...

M. Paul Gaudy:

L’après-guerre a résolu rapidement les tensions entre les peuples qui s’étaient opposés.

La CECA a été, pour sa part, un exemple complet de ce que la réconciliation entre ex-ennemis d’hier a été

réalisée dignement et rapidement. Du côté des Institutions, aux diférents niveaux, les problèmes étaient

pratiquement résolus dans les esprits de chacun. On peut dire que ce fut une réussite qui n’a jamais

handicapé ni le fonctionnement des administrations ni les négociations communautaires. Cette ambiance

communautaire a réalisé un climat d’unité et de collaboration remarquable.

R. C.:

Pourtant, les pères fondateurs voulaient garder la diversité.

M. Paul Gaudy:

En observant l’idée première des pères fondateurs, on doit conclure à ce que dès le départ

ils ont eu cette vision d’unité. Cela se retrouve essentiellement dans le traité de Paris où tous les pouvoirs

étaient aux mains de la Haute Autorité Du côté des autres institutions qui ont suivi, l’objectif a été conservé et

la diversité des domaines et des intérêts n’a pas permis une aussi grande unité.

R. C.:

Que pouvez-vous proposer ain qu’on puisse retrouver cette union dans la diversité?

M. Paul Gaudy:

Ceci est une donnée politique dans le cheminement vers l’intégration plus complète, chacun

agissant dans une direction aussi proche que possible de l’objectif.

En ce qui concerne la Cour, elle est sollicitée pour fournir aux instances politiques et surtout au Parlement

une vue d’ensemble des réalisations inancières de la Communauté.

C’est sous cet angle qu’elle peut agir en coordonnant les interventions des instances de contrôle nationales.

R. C.: Que pensez-vous de la DAS, déclaration d’assurance de la Cour des comptes, qui jusqu’à

présent a toujours été accompagnée de réserves?

M. Paul Gaudy:

Il est tout à fait normal que la Cour assortisse ses certiications des réserves qui apparaissent

dans les observations relevées lors des contrôles. La rédaction de la certiication doit être laissée à la Cour car

il s’agit de faire ressortir l’importance relative des aspects positifs ou négatifs de la gestion communautaire.

R. C.:

Avez-vous un message pour les Membres que vous avez connus aujourd’hui?

M. Paul Gaudy:

je me rends compte de la diiculté de la tâche d’aujourd’hui de plus en plus complexe

compte tenu de l’augmentation du volume des afaires et de l’étendue de l’aire géographique concernée.

Depuis sa création, la Cour s’est trouvée devant une gestion inancière morcelée qui ne cesse de s’aggraver.

EUU, Alm.del - 2016-17 - Bilag 551: Rapport fra Den Europæiske Revisionsret april 2017

In Memoriam Paul Gaudy

continued

Les administrations nationales agissant suivant leurs procédures sous le contrôle de leurs organes tant

internes qu’externes restent les premiers gestionnaires responsables.

Leurs comptes rendus à la Commission et la première appréciation de celle-ci relètent la réalisation de

l’ensemble des politiques communes dont le inancement reste la pierre angulaire.

C’est à ce résultat que tant le législatif (le Conseil) que le Parlement attachent l’importance de leurs

conclusions politiques confortées par les garanties trouvées dans les rapports de la Cour.

Son contrôle explique donc l’appréciation sur les rôles respectifs du système mis en place.

Il me paraît donc indispensable qu’existe une collaboration permanente avec les organes de contrôle

intervenant aux divers stades la gestion.

Jusqu’où pourra-t-elle s’exercer, et quels sont les nouveaux moyens dotant la Cour? Telle est la question se

posant aux politiques demandeurs d’une véritable Institution de contrôle.

FOCUS

Focus

Special

Report

N°3/2017

EU Assistance to Tunisia

We assessed whether the EU assistance delivered to Tunisia after the Arab Spring

revolution of 2011 has been well spent. We concluded that the money was

generally well spent as it contributed signiicantly to the democratic transition

and the economic stability of Tunisia after the revolution.

Nevertheless, a number of shortcomings were identiied in the EU management

of the assistance. In order to address these shortcomings, the Court makes

recommendations for the European External Action Service and the Commission

that concern the focusing of the assistance on a small number of sectors,

strengthening the implementation of the budget support programmes, and

inally, improving the planning of the programmes and speeding up their

implementation.

Click here for our full Special Report

Published on

28 March 2017

EUU, Alm.del - 2016-17 - Bilag 551: Rapport fra Den Europæiske Revisionsret april 2017

EUU, Alm.del - 2016-17 - Bilag 551: Rapport fra Den Europæiske Revisionsret april 2017

EUU, Alm.del - 2016-17 - Bilag 551: Rapport fra Den Europæiske Revisionsret april 2017

Seminar on environmental auditing -

presentation of the Knowledge Node on Climate Change and

Environment

continued

audit work. The paper explains the concept of sustainable development and assesses the

role that SAIs might play in auditing national progress towards sustainable development.

The guideline provides an overview of how the concept of sustainable development may

be relected in the strategies, policies and operations of governments and individual

agencies. It also explains how governments have set about developing frameworks and

national strategies for pursuing sustainable development objectives and considers the

opportunities these might ofer to SAIs for review. The paper also considers the steps SAIs

may need to take to develop their abilities to undertake audits in the ield of sustainable

development.

ISSAI 5140 Guide on cooperative audit of international environmental accords

The guideline aims to outline the approaches by which audits of international

environmental accords might be carried out and describes ways of co-operation between

SAIs. The guide focuses primarily on the audits of international accords related to the

environment but it also applies equally to non-environmental accords as well as to other

kinds of audits that SAIs may wish to carry out together. It deines the approaches by

which cooperative audits might be carried out, i.e. concurrent, joint or co-ordinated.

The guide outlines the general nature and methodology as well as the advantages and

disadvantages of each type of audit. The guide proposes a protocol or agreement for SAIs

to use when carrying out and reporting such audits. It outlines incentives for SAIs to carry

out audits of international accords and to work closely with other SAIs and provides some

examples of such audits and the associated advantages and/or disadvantages.

4th International training programme “Introduction to environment auditing” in

ICED centre in Jaipur, India – from theory to its implementation in practice

Stefan den Engelsen presented the training on environment audit which was held from

20 November to 5 December 2016. The training was developed as part of the INTOSAI

WGEA work programme with the SAIs of India, Estonia, Brazil and Indonesia. The training

was hosted by the International Centre for Environment auditing and sustainable

development (ICED) in Jaipur, India. In four years approximately 85 auditors have been

trained on this programme.

At the beginning of the programme the

introduction to performance audit was

presented, concepts of sustainable development,

good environmental governance and basics

of environmental audit were explained and

a sustainable development ield trip to the

water management project was organised.

Environmental governance was deined as

advocating sustainability as the supreme

consideration for managing all human activities

at apolitical, social and economic level.

Environmental governance also views natural

resources and the environment as global public

goods, belonging to the category of goods

that are not diminished when they are shared.

The most important concepts in environmental

governance are the polluter pays principle and

environmental liability; the use of best available

techniques and the precautionary principle.

EUU, Alm.del - 2016-17 - Bilag 551: Rapport fra Den Europæiske Revisionsret april 2017

Seminar on environmental auditing -

presentation of the Knowledge Node on Climate Change and

Environment

continued

The general introduction to the course was followed by detailed presentations on auditing

environment and sustainable development in the ields of water, biodiversity, waste and

climate change utilising the guidance materials produced by INTOSAI WGEA. For each topic

global challenges and important criteria to asses activities of auditees were identiied.

Throughout the area of environmental auditing the main source of requirements and criteria

are multilateral environment agreements, which regulate the process of global protection.

Some of which are legally binding (e.g. conventions and treaties) and others are not legally

binding, such as resolutions and decisions.

At the end of the program participants had to draft a inal paper on a selected audit topic. The

paper included a high-level risk assessment and audit design matrix. The inal papers were

reviewed by a panel and summary presentations were given to the group.

The lessons learned

This was the irst seminar on environment audit under the umbrella of Knowledge Node on

Climate Change and Environment. Around 40 participants from across all chambers of the

Court attended the seminar. This indicates that not only auditors who are regularly involved in

environment audits are interested in environmental topics. It is therefore important to continue

with such seminars and build knowledge.

EUU, Alm.del - 2016-17 - Bilag 551: Rapport fra Den Europæiske Revisionsret april 2017

Workshop Professional Judgment:

understanding how auditors process information

21 March 2017

By Raphael Debets, attaché in the private oice of Alex Brenninkmeijer, ECA Member

A unique situation: being in a big conference room, everybody is working

silent and with full concentration doing his/her task. But what was it

about? More than 30 ECA colleagues carried out a case and real-time

survey in the ECA’s premises. All were unprepared, as part of the research,

trying to get to grips with the relation between accountability and

judgement; what is professional judgement?

Professional judgment is important in the public sector, where a variety

of ‘assessors’ – such as auditors, evaluators, inspectorates and many

others – operate and pass judgment on public organizations. Professional

judgment is important yet diicult. Research has shown many biases

and risks in professional judgement. During a two-hour workshop, ECA

Member Alex Brenninkmeijer introduced Dr Thomas Schillemans (Utrecht

University School of Governance

). Dr Schillemans tested a special case

of professional judgment with more than 30 auditors from the European

Court of Auditors. The same test will also be done in other organizations.

This research aims to further understand how professional judgment

works for performance auditors and public sector evaluators and what

factors contribute to its success, drawing on insights from auditing,

psychology and public administration.

This should lead to new insights in how professional assessors process

information and come to their judgment. It will shed light on pertinent

questions such as: when do assessors process more or less information?

When are they more likely to make errors and, also, do auditors from the

same organization weigh the same evidence in similar ways?

Some possible answers were discussed in an informal gathering during

the lunch ofered to the hard working and enthusiastic participants. The

real answers to these questions will follow in autumn this year when

Dr Schillemans will present his indings to all interested staf, here in

Luxembourg.

[email protected]

EUU, Alm.del - 2016-17 - Bilag 551: Rapport fra Den Europæiske Revisionsret april 2017

ISSN 1831-449X

EDITION HIGHLIGHTS

PROFESSOR MARIO MONTI AT THE

EUROPEAN COURT OF AUDITORS

THE FORUM FOR INTOSAI PROFESSIONAL

PRONOUNCEMENTS AT THE ECA

PERFORMANCE AUDIT ON THE SINGLE

EUROPEAN SKY: ECA AUDIT TEAM IN

WASHINGTON

SEMINAR ON ENVIRONMENTAL AUDITING -

PRESENTATION OF THE KNOWLEDGE NODE

ON CLIMATE CHANGE AND ENVIRONMENT

Cover:

- INTOSAI’s strategic plan groups

- Mihails Kozlovs, ECA Member and Professor Mario Monti

- H.E. Shigeji Suzuki, Japan’s Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary Ambassador to Luxembourg and

President Klaus-Heiner Lehne

QJ-AD-17-004-2A-N