My six years of service at the European Court of Auditors (ECA) brought with them the realisation that while special reports known as ‘audits’ tend to attract most media attention, there is far less public focus on the annual report itself, while the court’s work programme tends to draw even less popular interest.
This is indeed a pity since the court’s work programme is nothing short of being a multifaceted process rather than a task in itself. It covers a broad range of issues that are meant to and, in fact, do reflect the EU’s main challenges and key concerns in its response to the multiple crises it may be facing.
Obviously, not being policymakers, the ECA’s main priority is to check whether, in its future work, it will manage to check effectively, as it invariably does, whether the EU is making good use of taxpayers’ money to achieve the intended results.
I prefer to refer to the annual work programme and beyond as a list of the court’s audit priorities for the near future, bringing together an amalgam of hindsight and foresight tasks.
While some reports are based thematically on suggestions received from other EU institutions, primarily the European Parliament itself, many of the reports are also own initiatives.
What matters most is that, wherever the audit ideas might originate from, the final decision as to what reports and assignments are to be included in the final annual work programme is not done by any external imposition. On the contrary, it always was, and I am sure that it will remain, the end result of a collective decision taken by the court’s college itself.
Wherever the audit ideas might originate from, the final decision as to what reports and assignments are to be included in the final annual work programme is not done by any external imposition
For an idea of how wide-ranging the formulation of a work programme can be, one only has to bear in mind that the ECA’s 2023+ work programme contains no less than 82 topics linked to strategic priority areas. According to published data, 12 audits cover the €800 billion NextGenerationEU (NGEU) pandemic recovery package, mainly covering the Recovery and Resilience Facility (RRF); under ‘climate change, the environment and natural resources’, the programme lists some 21 audits, including on energy security, pollution, animal transport and sustainable food production.
The ECA will also be looking into the EU’s external action, courtesy of the chamber I had served in till the end of September 2022, such as the aid for refugees, military mobility and the Common Foreign and Security Policy.
Given the high volatility of the geopolitical landscape, the key message by the ECA’s new president, Tony Murphy, gains in added gravitas when he stated that “every citizen of the EU and its member states are being confronted with the effects of multiple crises: the global pandemic, rapid climate change and, more recently, a massive energy, security and migration crisis caused by Russia’s war of aggression against Ukraine”.
Such multiple crises make the court’s challenges even more demanding. To get its priorities wrong – which is definitely not the case – would end up undermining and/or weakening the court’s relevance and impact in these highly sensitive times when ordinary citizen’s concerns about taxpayers’ money being spent are of a far stronger relevance than ever before.
Throughout the current year, the court will also be publishing a number of special reports, work on which started earlier in 2022.
These include a highly topical report for which I was responsible but which then had to be assigned to another member due to the end of my term in office. I had been tasked with assessing whether the European External Action Service (EEAS) is sufficiently equipped to contribute effectively to the coherence of the Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP). I still relish with much satisfaction the highly intensive preparatory work the task had entailed, as well as the informal but highly informative meetings I had, together with my team, in a manner complementary to the audit itself, with a number of high-ranking EU officials, including the energetic and visionary EEAS secretary general, Stefano Sannino, for whose frankness and sharp insights I will remain forever grateful.
In this era when public demands on transparency and accountability, even within EU institutions themselves, continue to gain momentum, I have no doubt that tasks such as the following will draw much media attention: (a) conflict of interest – combating fraud; (b) anti-fraud strategy; and VAT fraud on imports. These are planned for publication this year and in 2024.
In previous years, it might have sounded as less of a priority but, in this challenging and demanding period of time, the ECA should be congratulated for taking on board subjects that in their own way impact directly on the union’s economic competitiveness, such as artificial intelligence and hydrogen transport.
Like all other EU institutions, the ECA has never made any claims of being endowed with perfection but it was and remains of much satisfaction that the integrity of its work has never been questioned even by its harshest critics or by those who might for their own reasons try to play down its significance or relevance as a key institution.
As the ECA president said in his foreword, this work programme will support the ECA, as it always has, in the challenging task of continuing to contribute to the sound and effective use of EU funds, through audit work that is, was and will undoubtedly remain truly independent, objective and professional.
Leo Brincat is a former member of the European Court of Auditors.