ISSN 1831-449X
Cour des comptes européenne des comptes Cour
2014
04
o N APRIL AVRIL
JOURNAL European Court Auditors of European THE CONTENTS OF THE INTERVIEWS AND THE ARTICLES ARE THE SOLE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE INTERVIEWEES AND AUTHORS AND DO NOT NECESSARILY REFLECT THE OPINION OF THE EUROPEAN COURT OF AUDITORS
Copyright PRODUCTION Rédacteur en chef / Editor in Chief : Rosmarie Carotti Tél. / tel.: 00352 4398 - 45506 - e-mail : [email protected] Mise en page, diffusion / Layout, distribution : Direction de la Présidence - Directorate of the Presidency Photos : Reproduction interdite / Reproduction prohibited Tous les numéros de notre Journal se trouvent sur les sites / The Journal can be found on : INTERNET : http://eca.europa.eu/portal/page/portal/publications/Journal EU bookshop : http://bookshop.europa.eu/
Cover/couverture: - Dr HARALD WÖGERBAUER, LEAVING ECA MEMBER FROM AUSTRIA - SWEARING IN CEREMONY FOR 7 ECA MEMBERS AT THE EUROPEAN COURT OF JUSTICE,10 March 2014 - M. EDUARDO RUIZ GARCIA, SECRÉTAIRE GÉNÉRAL DE LA COUR ET SON EXCELLENCE M. MARK LOÏC ENTIN, AMBASSADEUR DE LA FÉDÉRATION DE RUSSIE AU GRAND-DUCHÉ DE LUXEMBOURG SOMMAIRE CONTENTS
02 WE ARE LOOKING FOR AUDITORS TO WORK WITH US IN LUXEMBOURG p.03 03 TAKING STOCK Interview with Dr Harald WÖGERBAUER, leaving Member of the European Court of Auditors from Austria 7 February 2014 By Rosmarie CAROTTI p.06 06 TRENDS & CHANGES - 2014 CHAMBER IV SEMINAR 28 February 2014 By Rosmarie CAROTTI
09 SEMINAR ON THE STRUCTURAL FUNDS REGULATIONS, APPLICABLE FOR THE NEW p.09 PROGRAMMING PERIOD 2014-2020 11 February, 2014 By Luc T’JOEN, Principal Auditor
12 PRESIDENT OF POLAND’S SUPREME CHAMBER OF AUDIT (NIK), MR KRZYSZTOF KWIATKOWSKI, MADE A VISIT TO THE ECA ON 17 MARCH 2014 By Mariusz POMIENSKI, head of Private Office p.12 13 “EWS LUXEMBOURG ECONOMIC TALKS” 26 February 2014 p.13 By the Cabinet of Mr Henri GRETHEN
14 HOW TO AUDIT THE ETHICAL PERFORMANCE OF A PUBLIC BODY - A PROPOSAL By Paolo GIUSTA Author on ethics for civil servants and ethical leadership, Principal auditor at ECA p.14 19 FOCUS - BEKANNTMACHUNG FÜR DEUTSCHE ZUR WAHL ZUM EUROPÄISCHEN PARLAMENT - SWEARING IN CEREMONY FOR SEVEN ECA MEMBERS AT THE EUROPEAN COURT OF JUSTICE, 10 MARCH 2014 - SPECIAL REPORTS Nos 18 & 19/2013
p.22 - HELLO TO/ GOODBYE TO - IN MEMORIAM
22 LE FINANCEMENT DE L’UE: LE BUDGET EUROPÉEN 8 février 2014 Exposé présenté par M. Charles GOERENS, député au Parlement européen, sur invitation de l’association Deutscher Verein in Luxemburg p.24 Par Rosmarie CAROTTI
24 MODERNISATION OF THE PROFESSIONAL QUALIFICATIONS DIRECTIVE: SAFE MOBILITY 12 January 2014 Conference organised by European Commission DG Internal Market with Commissioner Michel BARNIER and Members of the European Parliament, 12 January 2014 in Brussels By Rosmarie CAROTTI p.27 27 CONTRIBUTION À UNE MEILLEURE PRISE EN COMPTE DES CONSIDÉRATIONS ENVIRONNEMENTALES ET SOCIALES DANS LES MISSIONS D’AUDIT DE PERFORMANCE DE LA COUR DES COMPTES EUROPÉENNE Par Driss BOUCETTA, stagiaire du Maroc
1 We are looking for auditors to work with us in Luxembourg
The European Union comprises 28 Member States and serves a population of over half a billion people. It has 24 official languages and an annual budget exceeding €140 billion. This money has to be soundly raised, spent and accounted for, for the benefit of all EU citizens. The EU's auditors help ensure that this is the case.
We are looking for highly talented graduates and young professionals with a strong academic background, and/or a professional qualification or training related to the field of audit. Final-year students may also apply provided that their diploma is awarded by 31 July 2014.
You must be an EU citizen, have a good command of two EU languages (your main language plus either English, French or German as a second language). In order to successfully participate in a highly competitive and demanding selection procedure, you will also need exceptional cognitive, organisational and interpersonal skills. You can find all details on the general and specific eligibility criteria in the Notice of Competition.
If successful, you could be working on a broad range of tasks which contribute to improving EU financial management including:
• assessing financial management processes • evaluating control systems and making recommendations for their improvement • auditing EU funds’ beneficiaries on-the-spot in Member States and third countries • working with our international audit partners We have 40 positions for outstanding graduates who are ready to relocate to Luxembourg to pursue their audit career primarily at the European Court of Auditors.
auditors.eu-careers.eu
You can apply from March 20 to April 23 2014 at 12.00 (midday, Brussels time).
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:C:2014:081A:FULL:EN:PDF
2 TAKING STOCK
Interview with Dr Harald WÖGERBAUER, leaving Member of the European Court of Auditors from Austria 7 February 2014 By Rosmarie Carotti
RC: In a farewell interview it is customary to take stock. What is your assessment of your time in office?
Harald Wögerbauer: For me, it was a very novel experience to work in such an international environment. My experience here will certainly be useful to me in the future. On-the-spot visits to Member States were always interesting experiences for me.
Decision-making in a collegial body is not easy, but it does ensure that a balanced decision is reached. So I don’t want to call into question the nature of the collegial body, even though I do believe that decisions should be made faster.
One especially positive aspect was of course the ability to interact with the decision makers of European politics. The European Parliament was the most prominent institution in this respect, but I was also one of the few to have the pleasure to present two of my reports at the Council in 2013.
RC: The Court’s reports are normally sent to the European Parliament. Why was the Council involved?
Harald Wögerbauer: Because the reports were so interesting. The reports concerned were the report on energy efficiency and the report on road building and were both a success from a communication’s point of view.
The reports provoked many press articles: 60 were written about the report on energy efficiency, and 55 on the report about road building. In the Austrian newspapers, a good 10 to 15 further articles appeared. I also appeared with these reports on prime time television: once in Belgium, and once in Austria. I also appeared on Austrian television once more.
As far as communications policy goes, it is important to choose the right topic – one which interests the public. You have to keep everything short, and avoid making lengthy pronouncements. I have always kept my press conferences short – the following discussion is where it gets interesting.
3 INTERVIEW WITH DR HARALD WÖGERBAUER, AUSTRIAN MEMBER OF THE COURT OF AUDITORS
RC: That makes sense. So, the subjects of audits should be topical and interesting – but how are they chosen within the Court? Are they suggested by the Parliament or by the Commission, or are they chosen internally?
Harald Wögerbauer: It's a complicated process, bottom-up and top-down. First, the auditors put forward proposals which they find interesting. Then the Members of the ECA make their own suggestions. There is then a procedure within the individual chambers; at the end of this procedure, the Court agrees on what will be contained in the annual programme.
I do not believe that this approach is very efficient. One could imagine a small unit working within the Court, following the main daily newspapers of the Member State and identifying problems which affect the EU’s financial interests. Second, someone could report from Brussels which political and financial issues are currently being discussed there.
I don’t want to say that the topics proposed by our auditors might not be just as good, but I think we also need this political access. It is a completely independent access, but if our ‘stakeholders’, the Parliament and the Council, are to accept it, we must also have contact with them.
I find that there is far too little focus on the Commission and Council. We have everyday contact with the Commission in the course of our normal procedures, but from a political perspective, we should also try to find out what issues the Commission feels are important.
RC: Can the Court do this and maintain its independence?
Harald Wögerbauer: In Austria, this is enshrined in the constitution. Each federal minister can instruct the Federal Audit Office to audit something in his or her area of responsibility. A National Council minority can, at any one time, put forward three audits which must be carried out by the Federal Audit Office; a majority within the National Council can order an unlimited number of audits. These arrangements have not called into question the independence of the Federal Audit Office.
Selecting the right topics is also important for the Court’s PR work. However, reports should be produced faster.
RC: This is a sore point, and one which is also mentioned in the document on the Court’s strategy.
Harald Wögerbauer: In the Court’s meeting of 6 February 2014, we discussed two good papers: the peer review and the paper of the working group headed by Dr Ludboržs. My opinion is that you should have the courage to cut back the procedure radically, without jeopardising collegial relations.
Other audit offices do not discuss a ‘Statement of preliminary findings’ (SPF) before performing an adversarial procedure. There are closing meetings, after which they create a draft report that goes to the auditee for comments. The auditee may then defend its position, but it is the audit office that makes the final decision on how the particular matter is to be presented. So all the crucial steps remain in the hands of the audit office, and the procedure is much shorter.
4 INTERVIEW WITH DR HARALD WÖGERBAUER, AUSTRIAN MEMBER OF THE COURT OF AUDITORS
The peer review clearly states the following: ‘The peer reviewers recommend always concluding special reports with a final counter reply in order to clearly show its own position in light of the auditee’s replies.’
It goes on to say this: ‘The ECA’s ‘no surprise policy’ constitutes, in the peer review team’s opinion, a strong basis to conduct justified audits. However, based on their own lessons learned from auditing, the peer review team believes that the ECA runs the risk of going too far into the consensus-seeking dialogue with the auditee which might encourage the Commission to seek influence on individual aspects of the audit. The peer review team considers it as a risk that such an approach might not legally but actually limit the auditor’s independence. As the peer reviewers see it, achieving mutual satisfaction with the auditee should not be defined as an objective of the contradictory procedure.’ I agree wholeheartedly with this.
RC: Dr Wögerbauer, what issues will be important for the European Court of Auditors in the future?
Harald Wögerbauer: The introduction of an open item accounting system; this is also mentioned in the peer review. I have always held this view. Many SAIs already apply such a system. If recommendations are not implemented, this is noted in the next annual report until the problem is resolved. That would be a means of applying pressure.
A demonstration of the results of the Court’s audits in numerical form seems less realistic to me. We also need to move away from the ‘error rate’ and start to look at things more from an economic perspective.
I also think that the Court’s Special Reports should be ‘sold’ to the media in all Member States by the Court Members concerned. This should be a normal step.
I find it a pity that the annual seminar of the ECA will now only take place in Luxembourg. This is because, in my opinion, the most important aspect of these seminars was the team-building process. During the three or four days, we got to know each other better. The seminar in Luxembourg, though, will be supplemented by up to four visits per year to the Member States. These visits will have fewer participants, and it also will be possible to invite people from the European Parliament, the Commission, and the agencies. The first planned visit is to Lithuania.
RC: Dr Wögerbauer, thank you. I wish you every success for the future.
5 TRENDS & CHANGES - 2014 CHAMBER IV SEMINAR 28 February, 2014 By Rosmarie Carotti
From left to right: Baudilio Tomé Muguruza, ECA Member; Mark Crisp, Director; Milan Martin Cvikl, ECA Member; Vítor Caldeira, ECA President; Louis Galea, ECA Member; Pietro Russo, ECA Member and Neven Mates, ECA Member
ECA President Caldeira opened the seminar of Chamber IV, the fourth of its kind, and referred to the new reality of financial and economic governance and the many changes occurring in the spending of the EU funds. Innovation is the only way to cope with the changes, he said.
Many of these changes impact Chamber IV which because of its potential can be considered the ECA’s innovation centre. Chamber IV renders audit services through which it assesses the collection and spending of EU funds and provides opinions on financial management issues in a range of areas. These include the administrative expenditure of the EU institutions, around 50 agencies and joint undertakings, research and internal policies of the EU - and revenue and finances of the EU.
Two new landscape reports
This Chamber IV seminar was dedicated in particular to the challenges, experiences, and insights acquired so far during the two Landscape Reviews (LR) launched by the ECA as part of the framework of the ten initiatives in the 2013-2017 ECA strategy.
One landscape review is examining the risks to financial management, and the other focuses on accountability and audit challenges. The objective of the former is to identify the principal financial risks currently facing the EU and to provide an overview of EU policies where the risk is highest. The landscape review on accountability and audit examines the arrangements in place in the different EU policies in order to highlight any gaps, overlaps and grey areas.
6 TRENDS & CHANGES - 2014 CHAMBER IV SEMINAR
President Caldeira also referred to his interview in the March Journal in which he talked about his concerns, the ECA’s peer review, the ECA’s strategy and the recent “Ayala Sender” report on the ECA adopted by the European Parliament.
President Caldeira stressed that the ECA cannot ignore the changes coming from outside, and has to organise itself in a way to be able to address the new reality. Chamber IV is a pioneer in establishing a new flexible way by setting up the Financial and Economic Governance (FEG) project team to address, with the assistance of external expertise, needs and responsibilities as they emerged.
Explaining accountability
Jacques Sciberras, team leader for the landscape review on public accountability and audit, presented an outline of the work in progress so far. A draft report is approaching completion under the direction of the reporting ECA Member Kevin Cardiff, who inherited this task from the former ECA Member Gijs De Vries, who had made an important contribution to the Court’s new product.
He described the criteria used and the challenges emerging from the review. He explained some of the basic models for accountability, one being an academic model presented by Prof. Bovens in presentation given at the ECA (Journal, October 2013) which describes accountability as a relationship between an actor and a forum. The actor is meant to inform the forum and the forum is meant to make judgements of those actions.
While it is not always clear who the actor is, to whom it accounts to (which forum) and what it accounts for, the role of the auditor is relevant to strengthen accountability, transparency and democratic oversight.
He then went on to explain three dimensions of change in the EU landscape: external shocks, policy responses and a changing notion of what and how EU activities are to be accounted for and to whom.
In terms of external shocks or changes include the financial crisis and other global developments (such as environmental, health or security related events). The narrative of the crisis has shown the consequences suffered as a result of systemic risks and fragmented responses. Are there important lessons to draw for addressing similar potential risks in other domains: environmental and natural disasters, health and pandemics, security and others?
Policy responses changing the EU landscape include: intergovernmental agreements, partnerships with third countries or private partners, and new approaches to financial and economic governance and coordination. Two different approaches have been taken: a treaty based approach or intergovernmental agreements. Such approaches lead to different accountability arrangements, and when EU institutions or funds are involved in agreements outside the EU legal framework, such arrangements become increasingly complex, fragmented and may lead to gaps or overlaps.
Accountability is also changing as a result of new financial rules and an emphasis on from accountability for inputs to that of results and impact. There are new EU developments like the Euro 2020 Strategy, the Multi-annual Financial Framework (2014-2020), and new financial regulations.
7 TRENDS & CHANGES - 2014 CHAMBER IV SEMINAR
The increasing number of entities which are being created leads to disproportionate audit. The annual evaluation report of the Commission is one example of the challenges faced to measure the impact and results of EU policy.
A focus on risks
The second landscape review on risks for financial management was presented by Eddy Struyvelt, co-ordinator for CH IV for this landscape review. He described the similarities between the two reviews. Both are cross-cutting, horizontal exercises and their methodology is based on surveys complemented by a desk review of a number of important key documents.
The landscape review on risks for financial management is led by the CEAD Chamber under the direction of its Dean Igors Ludboržs who is the reporting Member. The core team is the Audit Methodology and Support (AMS) unit of the ECA.
Of course, the results of both landscape reviews will contribute to the ECA multi-annual programming exercise. They will be published and their aim is to contribute to reflections by the new Commission and European Parliament.
M Zacharias Kolias, head of unit of the financial and economic governance project team, discussed the experience of using experts and so-called focus groups in their audit work. This is not an innovation for the ECA, as a first trial of such a tool was made in 2007 with an audit of the Commission’s system for monitoring and evaluating the RTD framework programmes.
Latest developments
The second session of the seminar consisted of a round table discussion, chaired by the Director Mark Crisp, with presentations from all the Heads of Unit of the Chamber, highlighting important developments and challenges faced in their respective domains.
Louis Galea, Dean of the Chamber chaired the seminar. At the end he thanked all the participants and also took the opportunity to give the floor to the incoming new Dean of Chamber IV, Milan Martin Cvikl.
8 SEMINAR ON THE STRUCTURAL FUNDS REGULATIONS, APPLICABLE FOR THE NEW PROGRAMMING PERIOD 2014-2020, 11 February 2014 By Luc T’Joen, Principal Auditor
From left to right: Ms Adriana Sukova-Tosheva (Director ESF, Monitoring of national policies, DG EMPL); Mr Santiago Loranca Garcia ( Head of Unit European Employment Strategy, DG EMPL); Ms Veronica Gaffey (Head of Unit Evaluation and European Semester, DG REGIO); Mr Francisco Merchan Cantos (Director Audit and Control, DG EMPL); Mr Gabriele Cipriani (ECA Director, CH II); Mr Nicholas Martyn (Deputy-Director General for Policy, Performance and Compliance, DG REGIO); Ms Lena Andersson Pench (Director Audit, DG REGIO); Mr Franck Sebert (Head of Unit Coodrination, Relations with ECA and OLAF, DG REGIO); Mr Peter Berkowitz (Head of Unit Policy and Legislation 2014-2020 Inter-Institutional relations, DG REGIO); Ms Manuela Geleng (Head of Unit ESF Policy and Legislation, DG EMPL)
On 11 February 2014, in cooperation with the ECA’s training unit, a seminar was organised by Chamber II to inform all staff on the 2014-2020 structural funds rules and regulations currently adopted (there is a lot of further legislative work still ahead). To do so, CH II invited the key players of the Commission’s DG REGIO (Directorate-General Regional and Urban Policy) and DG EMPL (Directorate-General Employment, Social Affairs and Inclusion) to inform ECA staff on the headlines, principles and main novelties. The presentations therefore covered the main features of the new Council Regulation (EU) No 1303/20131, comparing the provisions to what is in place for the current 2007-2013 period.
After a short introduction by Mr Cipriani, Director of Chamber II, the Commission representatives informed that the new legislation links the five funds delivering structural investments into one legal framework and is consistent with the European Semester and the European economic governance so as to increase accountability from the Member States. Another key element of change is that the funds will become more results-oriented by linking performance and effectiveness, amongst others, through the use of “ex ante conditionalities”.
As in the 2007-2013 current period, it is up to the Member States to designate the authorities for management, certification and audit. The Member States may also designate a coordinating body. There is little change compared to the current period as regards the responsibilities for these various actors, as: - the managing authority will ensure the management and control, including effective and “proportionate” anti-fraud measures; - the certifying authority shall check the compliance of the expenditure with EU and national rules;
1 Council Regulation (EU) No 1303/2013 laying down common provisions on the European Regional Development Fund, the European Social Fund, the Cohesion Fund, the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development and the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund
9 SEMINAR ON THE STRUCTURAL FUNDS REGULATIONS, APPLICABLE FOR THE NEW PROGRAMMING PERIOD 2014-2020
- the audit authority shall provide an overall control report and audit opinion on the legality and regularity of the expenditure to the European Commission by 15th February each year, while, - the Commission will more engage in risk based checks (which is one of the major novelties compared to previously).
Many criteria for the management and control activities are similar in nature to what exists in the current programming period, but new issues related to indicators, milestones, anti-fraud measures, procedures for management declaration and annual summary of audit findings were explained.
Financial management, control and audit
An overview was given on the accounting details, the annual cycle (the accounting year will run from 1 July to 1 June of each year) as well as reporting obligations (the audit report by Member States has to be presented by 15 February, first time in 2016), while the audit work of the Commission will follow a more risk-based approach, and a “proportional” control concept (depending upon thresholds of operations to check).
When “serious deficiencies” are identified, the means at disposal of the Commission to further strengthen overall assurance on the quality of the spending are the interruption of the payment deadline, the suspension of payments, financial corrections and net corrections, but these are applied only under particular circumstances and after a rather heavy procedure involving contradictory discussions.
The main novelties here are that: (i) the “N+3” automatic de-commitment rule will now apply to all Member States; (ii) there are obligatory dates for making payments as well as lower pre- financing rates with reimbursements capped at 90% of interim payments; and (iii) there is a control report to be sent to the Commission with an opinion on the accounts (true, fair and complete), the proper functioning of the systems and the legality and regularity of expenditure together with a management declaration.
Programming and programme implementation; performance logic
The Commission representatives also explained the “performance framework” which is based on “partnership agreements”, indicating the strategic choices upfront, with coordination between the five ESI Funds2, links to Europe 2020 and consistency with the European semester, and with commitments on administrative capacity and lowering bureaucracy.
The intervention strategy is set, as nowadays, via an Operational Programme with (new) a focus on results, with result indicators reflecting the intended change for the region or sector, and with output indicators for measuring the deliverables. There are 11 thematic objectives for programmes to be supported by ERDF, CF and/or ESF, depending on the objective. A “thematic concentration” (read: earmarking) has been foreseen for certain objectives3.
Effectiveness would be measured through monitoring, reporting and evaluation whereas financial, output and result (only for ESF) indicators should measure the change at priority axis or investment priority levels. A “performance reserve” of 6% is allocated to priorities which achieve the milestones set, and a “performance review” is to be done by the Commission in 2019 against milestones set for end 2018.
2 The five European Structural Investments Funds are: ERDF, ESF, CF, EMFF and EAFRD
3 For example: ERDF funds more developed and transition regions should, for minimum 80 %, be spent on research & innovation, ICT, SME and shift to low carbon economy.
10 SEMINAR ON THE STRUCTURAL FUNDS REGULATIONS, APPLICABLE FOR THE NEW PROGRAMMING PERIOD 2014-2020
My personal view
The Commission has progressed towards performance spending compared to what is in the current legal framework: the new rules increased the focus on results and are a step in the right direction. However, there is still a need to do more, as:
- results are measured by output indicators in ERDF (these are usually NOT a problem4) and not by result indicators; and - the absence of compliance with the announced change is likely to give rise to a “policy debate”, not to sanctions (if the MS does not reach the result/goals for which the money was foreseen, there is no recovery/correction foreseen)5.
Such a policy line is partly understandable as Member States could otherwise be punished for situations beyond their control, and unambitious projects set as goals would be the “safe” way to manage expenditure. However, leaving this policy halfway still gives cohesion policy spending the image to be guided by the potential of how much a region can spend in a given period of time, rather than focusing on strategic planning, which was presented as being a major novelty.
Conclusion
All in all, this was a very interesting, well attended, seminar with skilled Commission presenters giving a clear view on what is there, comparing the new to the current legislation and this while the discussion on the delegated acts, implementing acts and guidance is still going on. It gave the ECA auditors also the chance to observe what is missing, still, from a performance perspective. More detailed sessions, eg. on major projects, financial instruments and joint action plans, were promised by the Commission staff. One also hopes that the many questions put forward by the auditors after the presentations, have succeeded in convincing the Commission officials that there is still some work to be done, at least to achieve a full and real performance-based spending.
4 E.g. in the SR 4/2012 on seaport infrastructures, the auditors found several empty ports: the outputs were there (the quays were built), but the ships not, with no added value or tangible results of the EU-investments made (no more jobs created, no more companies settled around the port, no increased regional GDP, etc).
5 This is against the ECA recommendation N° 2a of the seaports audit (SR 4/2012), which the EC accepted in 2012.
11 PRESIDENT OF POLAND’S SUPREME CHAMBER OF AUDIT (NIK), MR KRZYSZTOF KWIATKOWSKI, MADE A VISIT TO THE ECA ON 17 MARCH 2014 By Mariusz Pomienski, head of Private Office
From left to right: Mr Krzysztof Kwiatkowsk, President of Poland’s Supreme Chamber of Audit (NIK); Mr Vitor Caldeira, ECA President and Mr Augustyn Kubik, ECA Member
President of Poland’s Supreme Chamber of Audit (NIK), Mr Krzysztof Kwiatkowski, made a visit to the ECA on 17 March 2014, following a joint invitation from President Vitor Caldeira and the Polish Member Augustyn Kubik.
The meeting between the two Presidents focused on possible ways of enhancing cooperation between both institutions. The NIK is particularly interested in developing performance audit methodology and in trainings for their staff on auditing sound financial management. President Caldeira declared the Court’s interest in the cooperation in this domain; the Polish Member expressed his wish to contribute to it, too.
The meeting between Mr Kwiatkowski and Deans of Chambers I and II, Mrs Rasa Budbergyte and Mr Henri Grethen, was concentrated on the results of the ECA’s work in the two areas of the shared management (agriculture and structural funds). These results are likely to be used by the Polish SAI in the context of their risk assessment and planning of their audit work.
The final event of the day was a meeting with the Polish staff of the Court. An interesting exchange of views took place, notably on the practical aspects of cooperation between the Court’s and the NIK’s auditors during on the spot visits in Poland.
From left to right: Mrs Rasa Budbergyte, ECA Member; Mr Krzysztof Kwiatkowsk, President of Poland’s Supreme Chamber of Audit (NIK); Mr Augustyn Kubik, ECA Member and Mr Henri Grethen, ECA Member
12 “EWS LUXEMBOURG ECONOMIC TALKS” 26 February 2014 By the Cabinet of Mr Henri Grethen
From left to right: Mr Oleksandr Rotov, GERC Group (urban development) Kiev; Mr Wolfgang Franken, EWS, Secretary general, Lucerne; Mr Michael Jäger, Chief Executive Officer, European Economic Senate; Mr Denis Wernerus, ECA; Mr Marc Hostert, Cabinet of Mr Grethen; Mr Henri Grethen, ECA Member; Dr. Ingo Friedrich, EWS President; Mr Rolf Baron von Hohenhau, Chairman of the Supervisory Board
On 26 February 2014, Mr Henri Grethen played host to the European Economic Senate (EWS) at the ECA.
The European Economic Senate (EWS) is a recognised non-partisan European committee composed of successful companies and individuals from all sectors of the European economy who make their knowledge and expertise available to political decision- makers, supporting the constructively critical approach of the European Court of Auditors.
The EWS’s economic talks with Mr Henri Grethen, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg’s Member at the European Court of Auditors, and the staff of his private office presented an ideal opportunity for the assembled entrepreneurs from all over Europe to engage in dialogue in order to gain a deeper insight into the work currently being carried out by the European Court of Auditors, and to put forward views from the perspective of their companies.
Former Commission President Jacques Santer, an honorary member of the EWS, was also present at the event.
13 HOW TO AUDIT THE ETHICAL PERFORMANCE OF A PUBLIC BODY - A PROPOSAL1
By Paolo GIUSTA Author on ethics for civil servants and ethical leadership, Principal auditor at ECA
How to audit the ethical performance of a public body - A proposal1
The audited area Auditing the way ethics is implemented in public-sector bodies subject to the scrutiny of Supreme Audit Institutions is a challenging task, as the discussions held and questions raised at the EUROSAI Seminar on Auditing Ethics-Related Issues of September 20132 demonstrated. This article intends to reflect on a possible basis for carrying out such an audit. This reflection will, of course, have to be developed and adapted in the event an actual audit is carried out. The logical starting point for this kind of audit is to look at the scope of the potential audited area, i.e. what the audit framework of the audited bodies consists of. Typically, this framework - or ethical infrastructure - consists of several layers, like the steps of a ladder (see Figure 1).
Figure 1: the layers of the ethical infrastructure of an organisation
Excellence orientation 4. Ethical culture Facts (“we want to”) 3. Guiding values
Compliance 2. Other obligations and standards Written orientation provisions (“we have to”) 1. Minimal legal requirements
The first step consists of compulsory provisions laid down by legal rules, including staff regulations stipulating civil servants’ obligations, and remedies - such as disciplinary sanctions - in the event these obligations are not complied with. This is the first and minimal level of any ethical infrastructure: indeed, one can expect from a public body that at the very least no illegal act is committed. In the second layer, we find other obligations and standards of public conduct, such as the duty to act with independence, in the event such a duty does not stem for a legal provision. Part of the independence standard is the avoidance of conflicts of interest, e.g. as laid down by the OECD3. At this point, we also find any other rule that the audited body has decided to adopt, such as provisions to protect the dignity of staff, the obligation to denounce reprehensible acts, etc. Some organisations may decide formally to adopt a code of ethics containing these tailor-made obligations applying to its staff. These first two layers share the feature that they look at ethics as compliance with established rules. They aim primarily to prevent, identify and punish bad behaviour. The provisions they contain are enforceable, and consequences - such as disciplinary and even criminal sanctions - can be applied when such provisions are breached.
1 The same article will appear in the Report from the EUROSAI Task Force on Audit & Ethics, to be published. 2 See ECA Journal of October 2013, p. 16. 3 See OECD (2005), OECD Guidelines for Managing Conflict of Interest in the Public Service (www.oecd.org/gov/ethics).
14 HOW TO AUDIT THE ETHICAL PERFORMANCEOF A PUBLIC BODY - A PROPOSAL
The next two levels belong to a different, yet complementary, approach to ethics, which considers ethics as a resource for better behaviour and decision making, and ultimately for better performance4, rather that just as a limitation indicating what should be avoided. The content of these two latter layers is largely unenforceable. Here the consequences are not sanctions, but positive outcomes if they are put into practice: a more serene working climate, more and better- quality output, increased reputation, and a better service to the public as the bottom line. The third layer is the values that the organisation considers important: the values that should guide the strategy and daily operations of managers and staff and that are typically enshrined in a value statement, communicated to all personnel and stakeholders. These values are aspirational, insofar as they indicate which kind of excellent (not only rule-abiding) conduct and decisions the organisation is striving to achieve and demonstrate. The first three layers consist of written provisions. This facilitates audit work, since one can at least check whether such documents exist. All these written provisions, however, could remain little more than wishful thinking if they are not used and put into practice in the organisation’s daily life. Here the actual, non-written ethical culture of the audited body enters into play – the fourth step in our ladder. This culture is composed of facts, such as the example provided by public servants at the top of the organisation (which we see as the single most important element of the ethical infrastructure), the time and resources spent in making ethics a priority (e.g. by setting up an integrity function, internal and external communication actions, training courses, etc.)
Possible audit questions Looking at the ethical framework as described above, a number of key risks appear: • some elements of the framework may not exist, which would be particularly unfortunate if the most important ones were missing: the first step, where legal obligations are laid down, and the fourth, which makes the whole framework operate in practice rather than just in theory; • the elements of the framework may well exist, but not be functioning. This might be due to some internal inconsistencies in the ethical framework (e.g. the values declared have nothing to do with the obligations and standards in the code of conduct) or to the fact that the written provisions are overlooked when it comes to deciding the course of action to be followed in concrete situations. • It may also be impossible to know whether or not the ethical framework is effective, since no measurement system has been put in place by the audited entity, or the wrong indicators have been chosen. Based on this first list of the most obvious risks, the following pyramid of audit questions could be conceived (Figure 2):
4 For a recent research indicating that there is “a positive and strong correlation between ethics and organizational performance”, see Peyman Akhavan, Majid Ramezan, Jafar Yazdi Moghaddam, Gholamhossein Mehralian, (2014) “Exploring the relationship between ethics, knowledge creation and organizational performance: Case study of a knowledge-based organization”, VINE, Vol. 44 Iss: 1, pp. 42 – 58.
15 HOW TO AUDIT THE ETHICAL PERFORMANCEOF A PUBLIC BODY - A PROPOSAL
Figure 2: Outline of a basic pyramid of audit questions, to be developed for audits on ethical performance
1. Is the ethical framework of the audited entity effective?
1.3. Does the audited entity monitor 1.1. Does an appropriate ethical 1.2. Is the ethical framework working in the implementation of its ethical framework exist? practice? framework?
1.2.3. 1.3.2. Are 1.1.1. Do 1.1.2 Has 1.1.3. Is 1.2.1. Are all 1.2.2. Are the 1.3.1. Are 1.3.3. Is Do top these minimal legal the entity there an instances audited body’s objectives someone managers objectives requirements adopted integrity of illegal values and laid down? measuring lead by accompanied exist? tailor-made function behaviour standards applied them example? by indicators? obligations, in place? detected throughout the regularly? standards and organisation in and values? punished? daily conduct and decision-making?
Possible audit approach To answer these questions, the auditors could look at the following elements: 1.1. The existence of the ethical framework 1.1.1. The regulatory framework applicable to the audited body: legal provisions on staff obligations and standards, conflicts of interest, preventing and punishing misconduct such as corruption, harassment, etc. 1.1.2. Whether the audited body has decided to go beyond the minimal regulatory requirements and adopt tailor-made enforceable obligations and standards – which are compulsory for all staff, and aspirational values – which are intended to guide staff in making decisions and adopting the most appropriate course of action. Auditors could also look at the internal coherence between those tailor-made elements, for example whether the guiding principles are translated into operational and enforceable obligations and standards5 or whether, conversely, the values speak a completely different language from the compulsory requirements. If the latter occurs, it could be an indication that the values have been set up, maybe under pressure from stakeholders, without real conviction on the part of the organisations’ leaders and, therefore, they are likely to remain theoretical rather than become a practical tool. 1.1.3. The way the audited body has organised itself to ensure the ethical framework works, e.g. by creating a function providing guidance and advice on ethics and integrity- related matters. Here the auditors may look at existing practices, and note for instance the difference between the approach adopted by the United Nations, where every agency has a senior staff member (at director level) in charge of the Ethics Office, and the approach by the European Commission, where a network of junior “ethics correspondents” has been put in place, mainly charged with assisting colleagues in complying with the obligations laid down by the regulatory framework. By looking at the elements under 1.1.2. and 1.1.3., the auditors could also aim to ascertain whether the audited body has limited itself to a compliance-based approach to ethics, or whether they intend, at least in theory, to use ethics as a resource for increased performance and better service to the public. These elements would also allow them to determine whether the ethical framework
5 A good example of a coherent framework encompassing values and obligations is the Code of Ethics of the Project Management Institute (http://www.pmi.org/About-Us/Ethics/~/media/PDF/Ethics/ap_pmicodeofethics.ashx). This code also presents the advantage of establishing a clear distinction between mandatory standards (accompanied by possible sanctions in the event of a breach) and aspirational ones.
16 HOW TO AUDIT THE ETHICAL PERFORMANCEOF A PUBLIC BODY - A PROPOSAL is complete (have all the four layers above been taken into account and developed?) and coherent (are the various elements consistent with each other?) 1.2. How the ethical framework functions in practice 1.2.1. Here the auditors should look first at whether all instances of reprehensible behaviour are detected and punished. Indeed, the organisation might be proud of having systematically applied no disciplinary sanctions at all to its staff for a number of years. This could well indicate that no breach in civil servants’ obligations and professional standards has occurred. However, this could also present a distorted image, as is the case for other indicators proving an ambiguous image: e.g. if an external audit body tries to maximise the number of recommendations accepted by the auditee to measure its influence capacity, it may be tempted to water down some of the recommendations for the sake of ensuring the maximum number are accepted. Similarly, a lack of disciplinary sanctions might indicate that breaches in obligations and standards, if they occur, go unnoticed or, when they are detected, are not actively pursued. Appropriate audit criteria need to be developed, based on the nature and organisation of the audited entity, to assess whether this is the case. 1.2.2. The emphasis should then be on establishing to what extent the various components of the ethical framework, the existence of which has been established under 1.1., are applied as a routine practice by managers and staff, rather than remaining merely a beautiful picture that nobody looks at. This is possibly the most difficult task in this kind of audit: what is measurable here? What should be measured in practice?
A comprehensive measurement framework is provided by two renowned ethics experts, Joan Elise Dubinsky (the current director of the UN Ethics Office) and Alan Richter: in their Ethics and Integrity Benchmarks6, they provide “a tool for helping organizations assess and measure their progress in making a formal and transparent commitment to ethics and integrity in the workplace”7. In our view, these benchmarks, organised around twelve key areas, can be used not only by managers and ethics officers in the organisation itself, but also as a reference point for external auditors charged with assessing the performance of the ethical framework of such organisations.
Auditors could also be willing to look at what happens within the organisation’s everyday life. For instance: • is ethics something managers and staff talk about freely and regularly? (A private-sector organisation decided to name its meeting rooms according to its values; the fact that people knew they were going to meet at the “Integrity” meeting room, or the “Transparency” room, helped them remember what the organisation, and each one of them, were striving for.) • Do the audited body’s official decisions refer to the organisation’s values and standards in their recitals? (If not, this could indicate that the values and standards the organisation has chosen to adopt play little or no role in the actual decision-making process.) • Do training courses focus on compliance only, or do they provide the staff with tools for making sound ethical decisions, such as the ability to recognise and address ethical dilemmas when they encounter them? Are special training programmes devised for specific functions, such as managers, civil servants in charge of financial management, etc.?
1.2.3. Particular attention should be paid in this context to the tone at the top. As the US expert in ethical dilemmas Rushworth Kidder pointed out, nothing fosters the
6 http://qedconsulting.com/files/GlobalEthicsandIntegrityBookmarks.pdf. 7 From the Introduction.
17 HOW TO AUDIT THE ETHICAL PERFORMANCEOF A PUBLIC BODY - A PROPOSAL
development of an integrity culture more powerfully than the values visibly shown and practiced by the top management; and nothing destroys it more rapidly than a do-what- I-say-not-what-I-do attitude. Here, it could be useful to ask the staff (through a questionnaire, survey, etc.) about their perception of the way their managers lead by example, and to distinguish between top managers who have been politically appointed and those who have not.
1.3. The way the audited entity monitors the implementation of its own ethical framework At this point, the auditors could check whether the audited entity has a thorough knowledge of the ethical framework in which it operates, and what the basis for this knowledge is. Typical questions could be whether objectives are set for the organisation’s ethical performance, whether indicators exist to measure progress towards these objectives, and whether someone within the organisation actually measures such progress. One could also look at whether the indicators not only exist, but are the right ones (see 1.2.1. for an example of an ambivalent indicator). A useful checklist for public-sector bodies carrying out such monitoring is provided by the OECD8, and consists of a series of questions and sub-questions:
• Are the basic principles and standards clear? • How is an ethical culture fostered? • Is there adequate oversight and accountability? • Is the public well informed?
As we indicated at the beginning, this article presents ideas and proposals, based on the author’s personal experience and research; they should be developed further in the event an actual audit on the ethical performance of a public-sector body is carried out. In particular, audit criteria and methodology should be strengthened and fine-tuned, depending on the nature, organisation, and operations of the audited entity. Our intention, and our hope, is that this article will stimulate the debate launched in September 2013 and will provide some useful, and useable, food for thought.
8 OECD, “Ethics Checklist”, Paris, November 1997, quoted by Carol W. Lewis and Stuart C. Gilman, The Ethics Challenge in the Public Service. A Problem-Solving Guide, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, 2005, p. 226.
18 E FOCUS A
19 E FOCUS A
SWEARING IN CEREMONY FOR SEVEN ECA MEMBERS AT THE EUROPEAN COURT OF JUSTICE, 10 March 2014 © Court of Justice Members of the Court of Auditors are appointed for six years. They are nominated by Member States and appointed by the Council after consulting Parliament.
Mr Neven Mates (HR)
Mr Alex Brenninkmeijer (NL)
Ms Danièle Lamarque (FR)
Mr Nikolaos Milionis (EL)
Mr Phil Wynn Owen (UK)
Mr Klaus-Heiner Lehne (DE) As of 1 March 2014
Mr Oskar Herics (AT)
© Court of Justice As of 1 March 2014
20 E FOCUS A
SWEARING IN CEREMONY FOR SEVEN ECA MEMBERS THE RELIABILITY OF THE RESULTS OF THE MEMBER STATES’ AT THE EUROPEAN COURT OF JUSTICE, 10 March 2014 SPECIAL REPORT N°18/2013 CHECKS OF THE AGRICULTURAL EXPENDITURE
The Court audited the reliability of Member States’ reports on the results of their administrative and on-the-spot checks of the agricultural expenditure as well as the use of this information by the Commission. The Court concludes that these reports are not reliable due to both compilation errors and the systems for administrative and on-the-spot checks being only partially effective in detecting irregular expenditure. Additionally, the work of the certification bodies does not provide sufficient assurance either on the adequacy of the on-the-spot checks or on the reliability of the statistical reports. Lastly, the Court does not consider the Commission’s adjustments of the error rates resulting from the reports to be statistically valid. The report contains recommendations which are aimed at improving the reliability of the Member States’ reports as well as the statistical validity of Commission’s estimate of irregularities in payments after all checks have been carried out.
2012 REPORT ON THE FOLLOW-UP OF THE EUROPEAN SPECIAL REPORT N°19/2013 COURT OF AUDITORS’ SPECIAL REPORTS
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 ten Special Reports from the period 2006-2010.
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.
IN APRIL 2014 THE COURT SAYS:
GOODBYE TO
HELLO TO BAJLUK BRAZ Lehel ARNTZ Thomas CERDA MASSO Josep BALODE Agnese GILLET Vincent COSCIUG Andreea-Maria HARROP MAUBERT Pascale EFSTATHIOU Efstathios MARDARE Maria GRGURIC Marija MARTIN LEON Oliver MAJER Radek PAPADAKIS Ioannis MAUTHNER Martina SPINDELEGGER Margit WEISS Michael
DÉCÈS
Nous avons le regret d’annoncer le décès de Monsieur Hans IBSEN survenu le 23 février 2014 à Frederiksberg, au Danemark. Il a travaillé à la Cour de 1981 à 1990.
21 LE FINANCEMENT DE L’UE: LE BUDGET EUROPÉEN 8 février 2014 By Rosmarie Carotti
Exposé présenté par M. Charles GOERENS, député au Parlement européen, sur invitation de l'association Deutscher Verein in Luxemburg, avec la participation de MM. Klaus WERNER, président de l'association et ancien chef de division à la Cour des comptes européenne, Martin WEBER, chef d'unité à la Cour des comptes européenne, et Guy BERG, de la Commission européenne.
Le budget de l’UE
En 2014 s'ouvre une nouvelle période budgétaire de sept ans, et le budget de l'UE est, une fois de plus, le fruit d'un compromis laborieux, malgré sa taille modeste. C'est essentiellement celle-ci qui le distingue des budgets nationaux, car il ne représente que 1 % du produit intérieur brut de l'Union. En termes absolus, il s'agit tout de même d'un cadre financier de 959 billions d'euros pour la période 2014-2020.
M. Goerens regrette que ce budget soit aussi modeste, notamment au regard des attentes vis-à- vis de l'UE. À titre d'exemple, il cite les projets du Parlement européen en ce qui concerne la lutte contre le chômage des jeunes, action pour laquelle les États membres manqueraient de moyens, d'où sa proposition d'opérer un transfert de compétences au profit de l'UE en vertu du principe de subsidiarité.
L’avis de M. Goerens
De l'avis de M. Goerens, l'Europe, qui travaille aujourd'hui encore à un édifice réglementaire sur lequel elle ne parvient pas à s'accorder, n'est pas en mesure de répondre aux attentes des citoyens et de relever les grands défis posés par la mondialisation. Il conseille donc de réformer les traités le plus rapidement possible dans le sens d'un accord politique plus large, et juge cela très important pour l'euro aussi.
Il trouve dommage que la politique allemande, si exemplaire dans maint domaine, n'intègre pas la péréquation financière dans les propositions allemandes relatives au financement à venir de l'UE, car cette péréquation permet de mettre en place ce que l'on peut qualifier d'union intérieure de transfert. Si un Land d'Allemagne connaît des difficultés structurelles pendant une période prolongée, une aide lui est apportée.
M. Goerens déplore la situation de la Grèce, dont les prérogatives nationales, dit-il, se limitent désormais à recevoir les ordres de l'étranger, en l'occurrence de la troïka (la Commission, la Banque centrale européenne et le Fonds monétaire international).
La question est de savoir comment apporter davantage et exiger davantage de résultats en contrepartie. M. Goerens estime cela possible avec le temps, car la situation actuelle nuit à la
22 LE FINANCEMENT DE L’UE: LE BUDGET EUROPÉEN
cohésion européenne. Selon lui, il faudrait mettre en place un budget distinct dans la zone euro. En 1970 déjà, Pierre Werner indiquait, dans le rapport qui porte son nom, qu'une union monétaire ne peut fonctionner qu'avec des ressources budgétaires se montant au moins à 7 % du produit intérieur brut.
L’Europe doit revoir sa position
Selon M. Goerens, l'Europe doit revoir sa position et réfléchir à une nouvelle répartition des compétences. Elle doit constituer une réserve de crise et agir de manière contracyclique afin de prévenir des spéculations contre l'euro et un déclassement par les agences de notation. Pour ce qui est des prêts aux taux d'intérêt allemands avec des rendements d'Europe du sud, la politique aurait échoué. À ce jeu, les pays auraient trop présumé de leurs capacités. Une union de transfert serait bénéfique pour tous.
En outre, l'UE souffrirait d'un déficit démocratique dans plusieurs domaines. M. Goerens cite en exemple les 5 à 6 milliards d'euros de ressources du Fonds européen de développement, qui appartiennent aux États membres et sont gérés par la Commission, mais sur lesquels le Parlement européen n'a aucun droit de regard parce qu'ils ne proviennent pas du budget de l'Union. Il y aurait également un déficit de contrôle au niveau des transferts de l'UE vers les États membres. Quelque 94 % des fonds versés au budget de l'UE sont reversés aux administrations nationales sans contrôle du Parlement européen. Un déficit de contrôle supplémentaire pourrait apparaître avec la mise en place d'un budget spécifique destiné à la zone euro et financé par des ressources propres. Le Parlement européen et la Commission étudient actuellement cette question.
C'est un grave problème. Ici aussi, M. Goerens propose un modèle allemand. Avant la chute du mur de Berlin, il existait deux catégories de députés au Bundestag: ceux qui venaient de Berlin-Ouest et les autres. Ils pouvaient tous voter, mais les votes des députés de Berlin-Ouest n'étaient pas pris en compte lorsque la question mise aux voix intéressait la souveraineté de l'État. Pour conserver le cadre institutionnel de l'UE dans son intégralité, l'organe de contrôle parlementaire serait le Parlement européen, selon M. Goerens. Tous les membres pourraient voter, mais dans le résultat des votes, seules les voix des représentants des pays de la zone euro compteraient.
De gauche à droite: M. Guy Berg, Commission européenne, M. Charles Goerens, député au Parlement européen, M. Klaus Werner, président de l’association et ancien chef de division à la Cour des comptes européenne, M. Martin Weber, chef d’unité à la Cour des comptes européenne
23 MODERNISATION OF THE PROFESSIONAL QUALIFICATIONS DIRECTIVE: SAFE MOBILITY, 12 January 2014 By Rosmarie Carotti
Conference organised by European Commission DG Internal Market with Commissioner Michel BARNIER and Members of the European Parliament 12 January 2014 in Brussels
For the European Parliament: Mr Malcom Harbour, MEP, Chair of the Committee on the Internal Market and Consumer Protection Ms Bernadette Vergnaud, MEP Mr Andreas Schwab, MEP Ms Constance Le Grip, MEP
For the Council: Mr Panagiotis Beniadis, Expert Minister Counsellor, Presidency
For the Commission DG Internal Market: Mr Pierre Delsaux, Deputy Director-General, Ms Claire Bury, Director, Directorate for Services, Mr Martin Frohn, Head of Unit Free Movement of Professionals Commissioner Michel Barnier
The context
In the Single Market, EU citizens can work, study and live anywhere in the Member States, but the recognition of their diplomas remains cumbersome and a hurdle to free movement of professionals.
The new Directive 2013/55/EU, which amends Directive 2005/36/EC on the recognition of professional qualifications and Regulation (EU) No 1024/2012 on administrative cooperation through the Internal Market Information System (‘the IMI Regulation’) represents a new chapter in this process towards a deeper and more integrated Single Market,aiming to overcome the hurdles that still exist when EU citizens want to exercise a profession or undertake a traineeship in a member state other than their own.
Especially in times of economic crisis and extremely high youth unemployment in some Member States, this directive opens up new potential. The directive came into force on 17 January 2014. However, everything depends on a timely enactment of the provisions of the directive in national law. The delegating acts and the implementing acts shall be finalized by 2016.
New chances
In some Member States, there is high unemployment while in others it is hard to find skilled manpower. Professional mobility is low in Europe while about one third of European citizens would be willing to work in another country.
There are many reasons for this, and languages are certainly one of them, but the real hurdle is the recognition of the professional qualifications. There has been a lack of information and access to information had to be improved.
Reality is changing and the directive will come into force in 2016. The use of electronic devices will become much more common, and the minimum conditions for training and education will have to be updated accordingly. The directive will also take into account the trend to temporary services, the need for a partial access to a profession, and the need to recognise the traineeships.
24 MODERNISATION OF THE PROFESSIONAL QUALIFICATIONS DIRECTIVE: SAFE MOBILITY
The directive will allow an exchange of information between Member States; and the European legislator will support harmonisation of the levels of education and favour continuous and life-long training. But in specific professions, knowledge of the host country will be a legitimate requirement. Especially in the medical profession, the language of the country will be required, as there is also the fear that this mobility might harm the patient. There shall always be a balance between the right to mobility and the safety and protection of the consumer.
To take advantage of the new chances that will open up, it is important that the Member States start the process of transposition of the provisions into law right now. The directive leaves Member States freedom of action on how to achieve the goals.
The changes
The conference addressed the following issues:
1. The European professional card to facilitate mobility. It will not be a card or a piece of paper, but an electronic procedure supported by the Internal Market Information System which will simplify the exchange of information on professional qualifications and ensure the timely and efficient processing of recognition requests.
2. The alert mechanism and the knowledge of languages, to safeguard citizens and patients. The amending directive foresees the introduction of a proactive alert mechanism for health professions and professionals dealing with children. The control of language knowledge is also reinforced for professions with patient safety implications.
3. The recognition of traineeships and the importance of diversity in education systems, to facilitate qualifications. Although the scope of the directive is extended in order to cover those young professionals who still have to accomplish a professional traineeship to get access to their profession, it also preserves national education models, such as dual education.
4. Common training principles. This chapter is about harmonising the content and the duration of training. Common training principles will allow new professions to benefit from automatic recognition of their professional qualifications and thus will lead to faster and easier recognition procedures.
The engagement of the European Parliament
Mr Malcom Harbour, MEP, Chair of the Committee on the Internal Market and Consumer Protection stressed his close cooperation over an extended period with the European Commission, starting in 2009. He also reiterated that a new internal market committee will, in the future, have to closely monitor the implementation of the Directive after the elections to the European Parliament in May of this year.
In an increasingly diverse EU, there will be different capabilities, different levels of experience and issues with different professions that will need to be resolved to make the European economy and the Single Market better.
Mr Harbour felt that more engagement was needed with individual Member Mr Malcom Harbour, MEP, States’ governments, national Members of Parliament and many involved in Chair of the Committee on the Internal Market and Consumer Protection
25 MODERNISATION OF THE PROFESSIONAL QUALIFICATIONS DIRECTIVE: SAFE MOBILITY
professional organisations, as 40% of the cases of problems reported to parliamentarians were about mutual recognition of qualifications.
Looking at the figures, the number of regulated professions in different countries varies from under 50 in one country, and over 400 in another. To make that an opportunity for more transparent expertise and more competition, to have young people to aspire for qualifications valid across the EU, that is the goal.
But also building trust and confidence between professional associations is important. Everybody, in any profession, will have a complete professional record, including training courses and new specialities. This will be an encouragement to people to improve their skills.
The engagement of the Commission
The Commission was represented by Commissioner Michel Barnier, Internal Market and Services, who called for an interactive dialogue with all parties concerned. The role of the Commission had been to make fully independent and useful proposals for the citizens. National and European legislators have had to define a text of dynamic compromise, and the countries will now have to enact the spirit of this text into new legislation.
Commissioner Barnier sounded a warning not to fall back into nationalism, to keep up the principle of free movement, now that the recovery in Europe has picked up again.
“Free movement is the core of the European i