In its annual report for 2015 published on Thursday 13 October, the Court of Auditors of the EU notes that, once again, there was a significant level of irregularity (estimated at 3.8%) in operational spending in the headings of the multiannual financial framework. The Court says that this figure is an improvement on recent years but “still significantly above our materiality threshold of 2 %”.
According to Court estimates, the level of irregularity for payment transactions underlying the accounts was 3.8% in 2015, €5.5 billion out of a total budget of €145.2 billion. The European Commission was pleased to note that this figure is the lowest since 2010, thanks to improvements in the areas of agriculture and cohesion policy.
Reliable accounts. For the ninth consecutive year, the Court of Auditors said the EU accounts were prepared in accordance with international standards and present a true and fair view of the situation. “We were therefore able, once again, to give a clean opinion on their reliability”, President of the European Court of Auditors Klaus-Heiner Lehne told the European Parliament’s budgetary control committee. European Budget Commissioner Kristalina Georgieva welcomed this announcement.
The Court noted, in particular in the areas of cohesion policy and agriculture, that the level of irregularity had again fallen. Revenue was found to be free from material error. Administrative spending was the area that had the lowest level of error.
According to the report, the level of error under the heading “competitiveness” was estimated at 4.4%, lower than in 2014, when it was 5.6%. Under “cohesion”, the estimated level of error was 5.2%, also lower than the previous year (5.7%). The heading “natural resources” had an estimated error level of 2.9%, compared with 3.6% in 2014. The European agricultural guarantee fund (EAGF) accounts for more than three quarters of agricultural spending and was less affected by error (2.2%) than “rural development” (5.3%). The heading “Europe in the world” had an estimated error level of 2.8% (2.7% in 2014). Finally, the estimated level of error for “administrative spending” was 0.6%.
Lehne told MEPs that “the good news is that corrective action by authorities in the member states and by the Commission had a positive impact on the estimated level of error. Otherwise, it would have been above 4 %”.
In the Horizon 2020 programme, the Court found that, although there had been improvements compared to the seventh framework programme, “the Commission was still limited in its ability to monitor and report on the performance of the programme”, Lehne said. Lastly, he felt that the increasing use of financial instruments, “which are neither directly funded by the EU budget nor audited by us, poses greater risks in terms of accountability and the coordination of EU policies and operations”. (Original version in French by Lionel Changeur)