JOURNAL journal Cour des comptes européenne - European Court of Auditors
←
→
Transcription du contenu de la page
Si votre navigateur ne rend pas la page correctement, lisez s'il vous plaît le contenu de la page ci-dessous
ISSN 1831-449X
European Court of Auditors
JUNE
JUIN
No6
2012
JOURNAL
journal
Cour des comptes européenne
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
PRODUCTION
Rédacteur en chef / Editor in Chief : Rosmarie Carotti
Tél. / tel.: 00352 4398 - 45506 - e-mail : rosmarie.carotti@eca.europa.eu
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/
Copyright
SOMMAIRE CONTENTS
Pages
02 HOMMAGE À JUAN MANUEL FABRA VALLÉS, ANCIEN PRÉSIDENT DE LA COUR DES
COMPTES EUROPÉENNE
Par Eduardo Ruiz García et Alvaro Garrido-Lestache
p.02 03 SPEECH BY VÍTOR CALDEIRA, PRESIDENT OF THE EUROPEAN COURT OF AUDITORS
Budgetary control of the European Financial Stability Facility(EFSF), the European Financial
Stabilisation Mechanism (EFSM)and the European Stability Mechanism (ESM)
Hearing of the Committee on Budgetary Control of the European Parliament 24 April 2012
06 SWEARING IN CEREMONY OF FIVE NEW MEMBERS OF THE EUROPEAN COURT OF AUDITORS
p.03
By Rosmarie Carotti
07 QUESTIONS TO MR SHIGEMATSU, PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF AUDIT OF JAPAN, ON THE
OCCASION OF HIS VISIT TO THE ECA ON 4 MAY 2012
By Rosmarie Carotti
p.06
12 MRS VIVIANE REDING, VICE-PRESIDENT OF THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION AND
COMMISSIONER FOR EU JUSTICE AT THE SPRING CONFERENCE OF EUROPEAN DATA
PROTECTION AUTHORITIES IN LUXEMBOURG
By Rosmarie Carotti
p.07
16 PRÉSENTATION PAR LA COUR DES COMPTES FRANÇAISE DU RAPPORT PUBLIC SUR
« LES COÛTS DE LA FILIÈRE ÉLECTRONUCLÉAIRE EN FRANCE »
p.19
Par Ghita Kabbaj, stagiaire de l’École Nationale d’Administration auprès de M. Cretin,
Membre de la Cour
19 VISIT FROM THE AUDIT AUTHORITY OF MONTENEGRO AND THE GERMAN AGENCY FOR
INTERNATIONAL CO-OPERATION
p.22
By Rosmarie Carotti
21 MEETING WITH THE GERMAN BUNDESTAG’S COMMITTEE ON THE AFFAIRS OF THE
EUROPEAN UNION
By Dagmar Freudenstein, Attaché in Mr Noack’s Private Office
22 DR NOACK AT THE FORUM OF THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS, Brussels, 10 May 2012
p.23 By Dagmar Freudenstein, Attaché in Mr Noack’s Private Office
23 VISIT BY A DELEGATION FROM THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS
p.24 By Raymond Cachia-Zammit, Private office of Dr Louis Galea, Member of the Court from Malta
24 FOCUS
- SPECIAL REPORTS N° 5/2012 ET N°6/2012
- HELLO TO/GOODBYE TO
- SCHUMAN PARADE IN WARSAW, POLAND EUROPEAN VILLAGE, 12th May 2012
By Emilia Slupska, Private Office of Mr Kubik, Member from Poland
26 POLITIQUE DE COHÉSION UNE CHANCE POUR L’EUROPE EN CRISE ?
14 mai 2012 – Abbaye de Neumünster
p.26
Par Rosmarie Carotti
Couverture/Cover:
- HOMMAGE À JUAN MANUEL FABRA VALLÉS, ANCIEN PRÉSIDENT DE LA COUR DES COMPTES EUROPÉENNE
- SWEARING IN CEREMONY OF FIVE NEW MEMBERS OF THE EUROPEAN COURT OF AUDITORS
- SPEECH BY VÍTOR CALDEIRA, PRESIDENT OF THE EUROPEAN COURT OF AUDITORS - COMMITTEE ON BUDGETARY CONTROL OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT 24 APRIL 2012
- MR SHIGEMATSU, PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF AUDIT OF JAPAN
1
HOMMAGE À JUAN MANUEL FABRA VALLÉS, ANCIEN PRÉSIDENT
DE LA COUR DES COMPTES EUROPÉENNE
Par Eduardo Ruiz García et Alvaro Garrido-Lestache
Après une longue maladie, contre laquelle il a toujours lutté, Juan Manuel
Fabra Vallés vient de nous quitter (Tortosa, 1950 – Madrid, 2012). Ceux qui
ont eu la chance de travailler pour lui à la Cour des comptes européenne ne
l'oublieront pas.
Juan Manuel Fabra a été député au Congrès espagnol lors des IIe, IIIe, IVe et
Ve législatures, de 1982 à 1994. Pendant cette période, il a été membre des
commissions de l'économie, des affaires étrangères et des Communautés
européennes. Son vif intérêt pour l'Europe et sa foi en celle-ci l'ont mené au
Parlement européen, où il a été député de 1994 à 2000 et membre de premier
Mr Juan Manuel Fabra plan de la commission du contrôle budgétaire. En 2000, le Conseil européen
Vallés
l'a nommé membre de la Cour des comptes européenne.
Il a commencé à travailler à la Cour des comptes européenne en qualité de responsable du contrôle
des Fonds européens de développement (FED) et a établi divers rapports sur les programmes d'aide
au développement de l'Union européenne. Il convient notamment de mentionner le rapport sur
les programmes d'accompagnement de l'ajustement structurel, avec lequel il a contribué, grâce
à son esprit critique, à concentrer l'aide sur les programmes dans les domaines de la santé et de
l'éducation, ainsi qu'à améliorer leur transparence.
En janvier 2002, ses collègues l'ont élu président de la Cour des comptes, faisant de lui le premier
Espagnol à occuper cette fonction. Durant son mandat, en 2004, 10 nouveaux pays ont adhéré
à l'Union. Juan Manuel a fait usage de ses talents de «politicien-né» et de sa grande expérience
des négociations difficiles afin d'aider les membres de ces nouveaux pays à assurer leurs tâches
au sein de l'institution dès le premier jour. Dans le même temps, il a encouragé la réforme du
règlement intérieur en simplifiant les méthodes de travail et la prise de décision et en renforçant
leur efficacité. En 2005, à la fin de son mandat de Président, il a été nommé doyen de la chambre
de la Cour responsable du contrôle des actions extérieures de l'Union européenne. Son dernier
rapport d'audit a porté sur les fonds européens destinés aux pays touchés par le tsunami de 2004,
dans lequel il attirait l'attention sur l'urgence d'améliorer la coordination entre les donateurs et de
coopérer avec les organisations non gouvernementales présentes dans la zone sinistrée.
En 2006, Juan Manuel a quitté la Cour des comptes, mais il a continué à porter le projet européen
depuis la chaire Jean Monnet en partageant l'expérience acquise en première ligne durant sa vie
professionnelle intense. Il a régulièrement coopéré avec l'institut de droit comparé de l'Universidad
Complutense de Madrid et, ces dernières années, il a participé en tant qu'expert au processus
d'intégration régionale centraméricaine.
Ceux qui ont été membres de son cabinet à la Cour des comptes européenne garderont de lui
l'image d'une personne proche de ses collaborateurs, respectueuse et tolérante, qui savait
convaincre car elle savait aussi écouter et rechercher des compromis. Il nous a également appris
comment affronter la maladie, sans céder à la peur ou à la pitié, avec courage et franchise.
De ses nombreuses leçons sur la manière de comprendre le projet européen, nous retiendrons la
phrase suivante: «par rapport aux avantages qu'en retirent tous ses membres, si l'Union européenne
est une invention qui ne coûte pas plus de 1,24 % de la richesse que produisent les États membres, alors
c'est une invention magnifique».
2
SPEECH BY VÍTOR CALDEIRA,
PRESIDENT OF THE EUROPEAN COURT OF AUDITORS
Budgetary control of the European Financial Stability Facility(EFSF),
the European Financial Stabilisation Mechanism (EFSM)and the
European Stability Mechanism (ESM)
Hearing of the Committee on Budgetary Control of the European Parliament
24 April 2012
Mr Chairman,
Members of the Committee,
Distinguished guest speakers
I would like to thank the Committee, and in particular the
rapporteur Mrs Iliana Ivanova, for arranging this important hearing
and for giving me the opportunity to contribute.
The initiative of the Committee to hold this hearing on the
objectives, operation and oversight of the financial assistance
mechanisms created as a response to the ongoing economic and
Vítor Caldeira, President of the European financial crisis, is very much welcomed by the European Court of
Court of Auditors Auditors. It provides a valuable opportunity to raise awareness of
the issues involved, to benefit from each others’ experience and to
deepen our understanding.
Since the start of the current crisis - and particularly in relation to the creation of the response
mechanisms - the European Court of Auditors has repeatedly raised attention to the key principles to be
respected whenever public funds are at stake. This started with a letter to Mr Van Rompuy in November
2010 and continued with a Position Paper of the European Court of Auditors in May 2011. In October of
the same year, the Supreme Audit Institutions of the Member States alongside the ECA, jointly
reiterated and further developed these principles in a Contact Committee Statement.
I think it is worth briefly recalling these three key principles. They are:
• Transparency, in the form of reliable and timely information on actual or intended use of public
funds, and the risks to which they are exposed;
• Accountability, meaning the public scrutiny of the operations and holding to account decision-
makers and those responsible for managing the processes; and
• Public audit, to provide assurance and information on the use of public funds and the risks to
which they are exposed.
We at the European Court of Auditors are ready to play our part in achieving these principles in the
context of the mechanisms that are the subject of today’s hearing.
From the perspective of the ECA’s audit rights and obligations, we can distinguish three different types
of instrument. They have common elements, as well as some significant differences.
I will start with the EFSM and the Balance of Payment assistance, both of which operate under the
umbrella of the EU Treaty. These instruments are managed and administered by the European
Commission and guaranteed by the European Union. The financial flows move through the EU budget
3
SPEECH BY VÍTOR CALDEIRA, PRESIDENT OF THE EUROPEAN COURT OF AUDITORS
and the operations, assets and liabilities are disclosed in the EU’s financial statements. The European
Court of Auditors has full audit rights, as well as the obligation for financial audit of these operations
within the annual statement of assurance exercise. This has been the case since 2008 when the
Balance of Payments assistance was first used. As the first EFSM support was disbursed in 2011, it will
be covered by the statement of assurance exercise we are currently working on.
The annual financial audit responsibility is supplemented by the right to do selected compliance and
performance audits on the quality of financial management, made public in the form of special reports.
As you can see from our work programme for 2012, we intend to start work on an audit of the Balance
of Payments assistance and the EFSM.
The second type of instrument from an ECA audit rights perspective consists of the Greek Loan
Facility and the EFSF. Here, the ECA’s audit rights do not derive from the EU Treaty – at least not
directly – and neither do these instruments implicate the EU budget. In practice they are arrangements
between euro-area countries and put at risk national funds. However, the European Commission and
the European Central Bank EU have key roles in operating these instruments, such as setting lending
conditions and monitoring compliance.
As the European Court of Auditors has the responsibility to audit the use of administrative spending of
the EU institutions (as well as the operational efficiency of the ECB) we have the possibility to audit the
management of these instruments by these Institutions. I of course do not need to remind this
Committee that our resources are limited, and we therefore need to select between different audit
priorities over the European Union budget and the European Development Funds. This prioritisation is
based on risk, financial importance, political and public interest and other factors helping us to maximise
the impact of our resources.
Finally, there is the ESM – the newest of the mechanisms, and intended as a permanent successor to
the temporary EFSM and EFSF arrangements (although if, and how, any takeover will take place has
not yet been made clear). We will hear more about the audit arrangements for the ESM in a moment
from my colleague from the German Bundesrechnungshof.
From the perspective of the European Court of Auditors I would like to emphasise that we do not have
the right to audit the ESM as an institution. However, I am pleased to say that the ECA will have the
right to nominate one of the five members of the Board of Auditors, an important addition to the ESM’s
accountability arrangements introduced in the revised ESM Treaty. Alongside will be two members to be
nominated by the SAIs of ESM countries on a rotational basis. Each member of the Board of Auditors
will act independently in his or her personal capacity and not as a representative of the institutions
nominating them.
Also, and similar to the EFSF, the European Commission will be playing a key role in preparing and
operating the economic adjustment programmes. This will include making a preliminary risk
assessment, negotiating conditionality and monitoring compliance. And again, the ECA will consider
auditing the Commission’s role as appropriate and useful.
When looking at the overall challenges of the economic and financial crisis, we should not forget that the
mechanisms we are discussing today are part of a broader policy response. I would like to
emphasise the collection of measures put in place, or currently being finalised, in order to improve EU
economic governance. This includes the European Semester, on which we held an important debate at
last year’s Contact Committee meeting, the six-pack of regulations and more recently the fiscal
compact. There is also the reform of the financial market regulation and supervision which has led to the
4
SPEECH BY VÍTOR CALDEIRA, PRESIDENT OF THE EUROPEAN COURT OF AUDITORS
creation of three new supervisory agencies that the ECA has the responsibility to audit. Since for all
these measures the quality of statistics is of great importance, the Court is currently in the final stages of
completing an audit of the effectiveness of Eurostat in improving the process for producing reliable and
credible European statistics.
In a wider sense and beyond its explicit audit rights and obligations, the ECA as an EU institution
has a general responsibility to use its unique position and perspective to contribute to ensuring effective
public accountability, transparency and audit of the public funds put at stake to meet the EU’s
objectives. Therefore, we will continue to monitor the developments and contribute as necessary. We
will do so not only in the field of the EU response to the economic and financial crisis, but also by
assessing the entire landscape of EU policy developments in terms of the transparency, accountability and
audit implications.
To come back to the ESM, in my view, the emerging public external audit arrangements of the ESM are
largely promising, given the intergovernmental nature of the mechanism and particularly as compared to
its main predecessor, the EFSF. The raison d’être of the ESM is to protect the integrity of the Euro area
and with it, one of the pillars of economic and monetary union - a core EU policy.
Before finishing, I would like to take this opportunity to highlight the success of the recent co-operation
between national state audit institutions and the European Court of Auditors, both in the context
of the Contact Committee and between the euro-area countries. Working together we have been able to
prepare common positions which have had a significant impact on the revised ESM Treaty, and just
recently on the draft by-laws. I would particularly like to thank my German colleagues for their leadership
in this respect. The resulting positive outcome has demonstrated the effectiveness of close co-operation
for the common purpose of promoting adequate levels of public scrutiny and accountability, which this
Committee rightly considers as a key priority and is the driver behind today’s hearing.
On behalf of the European Court of Auditors, allow me to assure you, Mr Chairman and the members of
the Committee, that we are committed to assisting this Committee in furthering transparency,
accountability and public audit whenever public funds are put at stake to reach EU policy objectives.
Thank you for your kind attention.
5
SWEARING IN CEREMONY OF FIVE NEW MEMBERS OF THE
EUROPEAN COURT OF AUDITORS
By Rosmarie Carotti
From left to right: Mr Ville Itälä (Finland), Mr Kevin Cardiff (Ireland), Mr Pietro Russo (Italy), Mr Baudilio
Tomé Muguruza (Spain), Mr Vítor Caldira, President of the European Court of Auditors, Mr Vassilios
Skouris, President of the European Court of Justice, Mr Henrik Otbo (Denmark)
Mr Henrik Otbo (Denmark)
Mr Pietro Russo (Italy)
Mr Ville Itälä (Finland)
Mr Kevin Cardiff (Ireland)
Mr Baudilio Tomé Muguruza (Spain)
The new Members, who were appointed from 1 March 2012 to 28 February 2018, have
already taken up their duties but according to the treaties they had to be formally sworn
in.
This oath was made on 14 May 2012 before the Court of Justice of the EU in Luxembourg.
The ceremony took place in the presence of Mr Vassilios Skouris, President of the European
Court of Justice, and other robed judges. The solemn undertaking was also broadcast
publicly.
President Caldeira, reminded in his speech that the Court of Auditors is currently preparing
to mark its 35th anniversary. This was therefore a time for celebration, but also a time to
reflect on the Court’s role.
Developments in governance have led to the establishment of extra-Treaty
intergovernmental procedures and mechanisms and off-budget funds, which will have
significant consequences for the use of public funds in the future.
In order to fulfil its role effectively, the Court and each one of its Members must observe
the principles of independence, integrity, impartiality and professionalism. Otherwise it
would not have the credibility to accomplish its mission.
The new provisions of the Code of Conduct for Members of the Court and the publication
of their declarations of interest also serve to increase the Court’s transparency.
6
QUESTIONS TO MR SHIGEMATSU, PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF AUDIT OF
JAPAN, ON THE OCCASION OF HIS VISIT TO THE ECA ON 4 MAY 2012
By Rosmarie Carotti
From left to right: Mr Gijs de Vries, Mr Hiroyuki Shigematsu, Mr Vítor Caldeira, H. E. Mr Takashi
Suetsuna
On May 2012, the ECA received a visit from Mr Hiroyuki Shigematsu, President of the
BoA, and his delegation. The delegation, including H. E. Mr Takashi Suetsuna, the
Japanese Ambassador to Luxembourg, was welcomed by President Vítor Caldeira,
Mr Gijs de Vries, Dutch Member of the Court and chairman of the INTOSAI Working
Group on Accountability and on the Audit of Disaster-related audit, Mr Geoffrey
Simpson, Director of the Presidency, and Mr Antonius Moonen, head of the Dutch
cabinet.
R. C: The European Court of Auditors reports to the European Parliament. How does
the Board of Audit of Japan communicate with the Japanese Parliament ?
President Shigematsu: The SAI of Japan (BOA, the Board of Audit) has the mission to
check whether public money is used properly, efficiently and effectively on behalf of the
public, who is the sovereign. Therefore, it is indisputable that the relationship between
the BOA and the Diet is important in the audit work. In terms of the relationship between
the BOA and the Diet, it is essential for its audit to be planned and conducted in the light
of the deliberations in the Diet etc. In addition, it is also crucial to explain the audit results
to the Diet in a timely manner and sufficiently, so that the Diet is able to utilize them
effectively.
I would like to describe the BOA’s ways to incorporate the deliberations of the Diet into its
audits as they are planned and conducted.
It is important for an SAI to be independent from any other agencies so as not to have
intervention by any external bodies such as the auditees.
In this regard, the Constitution of Japan positions the BOA as an organ independent from
the Cabinet, the Diet or the Courts. For this reason, the BOA determines the Basic Policy
on Audit, the annual audit plan and audit work at its discretion entirely, without any
intervention from any other organizations. Every year, the BOA prepares its Basic Policy
7
QUESTIONS PUT TO MR SHIGEMATSU, PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF AUDIT OF JAPAN, ON THE
OCCASION OF HIS VISIT TO THE ECA
on Audit, and based on this, it carries out audit for the year. The purpose of the Basic Policy
is to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of audit and to accomplish the BOA’s mission
appropriately, in the light of socioeconomic trends and so on. In terms of the BOA’s relations
with the Diet, the Basic Policy underlines two points. First, the BOA responds to matters of high
social concern, in a timely and proper manner. Second, the BOA always pays attention to the
deliberations in the Diet, and in auditing issues in response to requests by the Diet, the BOA
pays full attention to facilitate the Diet’s examination and research by including the necessary
research contents in BOA’s audit activities in adequate consideration of the contents of the
Diet’s request.
In order to carry out an audit based on the Basic Policy on Audit, BOA constantly collects and
devotes careful attention to information on matters of high social concern discussed in the Diet
and reported by media. Furthermore, when the BOA complies with the audit request of the Diet,
the BOA tries its best to sincerely engage in it on the basis of the spirit of the Act.
Discussing recent ECA and BoA activities
In 1997, in order to strengthen the Diet’s function of monitoring government administration, the
Diet Act was amended in such a way that it enables each House or committees of each House to
request the BOA to conduct audits on specific matters and to report the results thereof. In line
with this, the BOA Act was also amended so that when the BOA receives a request from the Diet,
the BOA may conduct the audit upon specific matters requested and report the results.
In April 1998, the BOA received the first audit request from the House of Representatives, and
the BOA reported the audit result to the Diet in September. Until 2004, the BOA had received
only two requests. However, since then, as deliberation of the final accounts in the House of
Councillors has got more and more intensive and extensive, the number of audit requests has
increased to nine cases in 2005, with several cases being requested each year since then. The
BOA has steadily been carrying out audits with respect to these audit requests and reported 25
cases in total by 2011.
The matters for which audit requests are made often originate from social topics which lead
to issues of public interests and political importance, or are inspired by questions from the
Diet members in the committees. However, the customary practice is that an audit request be
8QUESTIONS PUT TO MR SHIGEMATSU, PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF AUDIT OF JAPAN, ON THE
OCCASION OF HIS VISIT TO THE ECA
made with a unanimous resolution of a committee, ensuring that the BOA can accept
audit requests without compromising its neutrality.
Whether or not the BOA accepts an audit request is decided by collegial process in the
Audit Commission, which is the decision-making organ of the BOA.
When audit requests are made by the Diet, the BOA strives sincerely to engage with these
requests, with its utmost efforts.
I would also like to describe the method for the audit results to be utilized by the Diet by
way of timely and adequate explanation.
The BOA submits the annual Audit Report to the Cabinet each year. The annual Audit
Report is then submitted to the Diet through the Cabinet as an attached document to,
and will be used as a reference for the deliberation of, the final accounts.
The Diet has a bicameral system which is comprised of the House of Representatives and the
House of Councillors. Deliberation of the final accounts is held in the Committee on Audit
and Oversight of Administration in the House of Representatives and in the Committee
on Audit in the House of Councillors. The effectiveness of audit can be fully achieved only
when the annual Audit Report is sufficiently utilized in the Diet and when investigation
into the causes and measures for improvement in respect to matters incorporated in the
annual Audit Report are thoroughly realized.
The senior BOA officials responsible for audit of each audited party always attend the
above-mentioned deliberations of the Committees to explain the contents of the annual
Audit Report or its audit activities and to present the BOA’s opinion. They also attend the
Committee on Budget and other Diet Committees to explain the contents of the annual
Audit Report or to express the BOA's opinions as required.
In November 2005, the BOA Act was amended. Before the amendment, the opportunities
to report to the Diet through the Cabinet on audit results were limited to once a year,
in principle at the time of submission of the annual Audit Report. With the amendment
of the act, the BOA is now able to report the audit results to the Diet and the Cabinet
on an as-needed basis, with respect to matters for which the BOA presented opinions,
demanded measures and other matters which the BOA deems particularly necessary even
prior to the completion of the annual Audit Report for each fiscal year.
This amendment enabled the BOA to report to the Diet and the Cabinet on a timely basis
by the BOA’s own decision through reports other than the annual Audit Report, when
matters to be deliberated in the Diet at an early date are found in audit activities. The BOA
has issued 38 such “Special Reports” on an as-needed basis in total by 2011.
R. C.: Where will the focus of the future international activities of the Board of Audit
of Japan lie?
President Shigematsu: For more than ten years, the BOA has devoted sustained efforts
towards capacity building activities within ASOSAI as its Training Administrator. While the
BOA is happy to continue serving such a responsible role within the regional community
of SAIs, the BOA is also seeking other opportunities to contribute more to broader range
of international activities by expanding our commitment to international cooperation in
INTOSAI and other communities.
9QUESTIONS PUT TO MR SHIGEMATSU, PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF AUDIT OF JAPAN, ON THE
OCCASION OF HIS VISIT TO THE ECA
R. C.: Are there recent major legislative and methodological changes in public audit
in Japan?
President Shigematsu: As described above, in 1997, the Diet Act and the Board of Audit
Act were amended, and since then the Diet has been able to request the BOA to conduct
audit upon specific matters and to report the audit results and the BOA has conducted a
number of audits upon requests from the Diet.
The Board of Audit Act was amended in 2005 in several points.
Firstly, as mentioned above, the amendment enabled the BOA to report to the Diet and
Cabinet on the Presented Opinions, Demanded Measures and the matter which the BOA
deems particularly necessary to report at any time even prior to the completion of the
Audit Report for that fiscal year.
Secondly, in addition to the accounts of contractors of construction with and of suppliers of
goods to the States which already had been subject to the audit by the BOA, the accounts
of contractors of other services with and trustees of works and operations by the State
were made subject to the audit of the BOA. The amendment also made it applicable not
only to the State but also to legal persons more than half of whose capital was invested
by the State.
Thirdly, the obligations of auditees for undergoing the BOA’s audits were clearly stipulated.
Special Accounts of the Japanese Government, whose accounting is cash-based and
of which final accounts of expenditures and revenues are audited by the BOA, produce
financial statements such as B/S and P/L. Until 2007, such financial statements had been
informal and had not been audited. In 2007, the Special Accounts Act was enacted and
such financial statements became formal documents. They are not used for account
settlement but issued for information disclosure purpose, and made subject to the audit
of the BOA.
In 2007, the Act on Assurance of Sound Financial Status of Local Government established
an examination system of fiscal soundness of local government which required auditors
of the local government to examine fiscal soundness indices determined by local
government and express their opinions. This did not affect audit work of the BOA but was
an important change to public audit.
As to audit methodology, there have been several changes to be pointed out.
First one is what is called “horizontal and vertical expansion of the audit perspective”, that
is, the BOA has enhanced its efforts, when an improper case is observed, to find similar
cases in other audited bodies and in past activities.
Secondly, in its audits, the BOA now considers more than before, in addition to the past
activities and accountings of auditees, the forecasts of future costs etc. to be incurred if a
present policy continues.
10QUESTIONS PUT TO MR SHIGEMATSU, PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF AUDIT OF JAPAN, ON THE
OCCASION OF HIS VISIT TO THE ECA
Thirdly, the number of presented opinions and demanded
measures has increased remarkably in recent years, as the
BOA has been focusing more on future improvements.
And lastly, in conducting audits, the BOA has been trying
to respond, in a timely and proper manner, to changes in
socio-economic situations as much as possible through, for
example, institutional reforms such as establishment of the
Office of Audit of Reconstruction.
R. C.: How can the BOA and ECA together strengthen
public audit?
President Hiroyuki higematsu
President Shigematsu: As SAIs lack peers in their countries,
I believe that exchanging opinions, experiences and lessons learned between SAIs
contributes to improving their audit activities to a great extent. Improvement of our SAI’s
audit work through our sharing of information and exchanging of opinions will increase
public trust in public audit, which will further contribute to strengthen public audit.
Due to the globalization of the economy, now it is not enough that issues of global
economy and/or public finance are addressed by each country individually, but they
should be addressed beyond the national boundary, as seen in the Debt Crisis case.
In such a situation, it is of much value for us to share knowledge and exchange opinions
with the ECA, which operates in the framework of the EU region, beyond national borders.
Last, but not least, I thank the ECA very much for welcoming us. I always appreciate the
ECA’s huge contribution to enhancement of public audit and public accountability in
Europe as well as the INTOSAI community. I hope our close and strong relationship will
not only last but also be further enhanced in the future.
11MRS VIVIANE REDING, VICE-PRESIDENT OF THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION
AND COMMISSIONER FOR EU JUSTICE AT THE SPRING CONFERENCE OF
EUROPEAN DATA PROTECTION AUTHORITIES IN LUXEMBOURG
The conference of European data protection and privacy commissioners
was held on 3-4 May 2012 at the premises of the European Court of Auditors.
The special guest speaker was Mrs Viviane Reding, Vice-President of the
European Commission and Commissioner for EU Justice
By Rosmarie Carotti
In January 2012, the European Commission proposed a comprehensive reform of the EU's 1995
data protection rules to strengthen online privacy rights and boost Europe's digital economy.
EU Commissioner Viviane Reding thanked the participants for their very detailed, timely and useful
opinions on the proposals put forward by the Commission, and for their comprehensive analysis as
practitioners who put the law into practice.
The data world has changed profoundly in recent years; this requires a legal and regulatory
response. Viviane Reding is aiming for a single EU law, at rules which apply not only to all controllers
established in the EU, but also to those who are not established in the EU, but offer services and
products to individuals based in the EU. One single law is what European companies ask from the
Commission and what American companies also ask for when they want to make use of the internal
market; they need consistent rules.
The new regulation setting out a general EU framework for data protection is not something new,
but in line with the directive of 1995 and with the fundamental law of the EU, the Treaty and the
Charter of fundamental rights. Commissioner Reding therefore considers it simply a must.
Experience has taught us that the values in the foundation of the directive of 1995 were wonderful,
but that their application to the new internet world was impossible because of a patchwork of rules
that led to legal uncertainty and not enough protection for the citizens. National data protection
authorities play a central role in getting to a unified law and enforcing it. Therefore the logic of the
new rules is to strengthen the national data protection authorities.
The proposals place clear responsibility and accountability on those who are processing personal
data. Incentives for controllers to invest in data protection from the start have been included in the
regulation. This investment could be through, for example, data protection impact assessments,
data protection by design, as well as data protection by default, which will encourage data
controllers to think about data protection even before offering a service or a new application.
Also, the rights of the citizens have been strengthened. In response to the requests put forward
by the data protection authorities the notion of consent has been clarified. General principles
of transparency and an enhanced redress mechanism have been introduced, together with the
obligation to notify clients or users in the event of a serious data breach.
Another demand was to harmonise the powers and the competences of supervisory authorities.
Today, not all can start an investigation and impose sanctions; in the future, all will have not only
this possibility, but it will be an obligation. The new regulation will provide the tools needed to
better ensure and, where necessary, enforce compliance with EU data protection rules.
But the Commission has resisted the temptation to write every single regulatory detail into the new
rules. An overprescriptive regulation is never a good regulation, and also the Commission wanted
to leave room for a possible adaptation of the rules to new technological or societal developments,
without the need to re-open the entire regulation to a long legislative process.
12MRS VIVIANE REDING, VICE-PRESIDENT OF THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION AND COMMISSIONER
FOR EU JUSTICE AT THE SPRING CONFERENCE OF EUROPEAN DATA PROTECTION AUTHORITIES
IN LUXEMBOURG
That is why the Commission’s proposal foresees the possibility to adopt delegated acts in a number
of areas. Delegated acts are a new instrument. They are based on the new article 290 of the Treaty
of the functioning of the European Union, introduced at the request of the European Parliament.
They are a long overdue response of the Treaty to a very complex and untransparent procedure
called comitology. Comitology has been rightly criticized for decades by the European Parliament,
because it allows unelected demo-bureaucrats from the ministries of the Member States to draft
technical implementation rules behind closed doors in expert committees.
This is very different to delegated acts as now foreseen in article 290 of the new Treaty of Lisbon,
because delegated acts allow supplementing or amending certain non essential elements of a
legislative act. The delegation itself, as well as the object, the content, the scope and the duration
of the delegation, must be explicitly agreed to by the Parliament and the Council in the text of the
legislative act,. It may even been foreseen that the Parliament and the Council can decide to revoke
the delegation. Delegated acts therefore are not an undemocratic procedure that would allow for a
power grab by the Commission; on the contrary, delegated acts were created to deliberately allow
for a process to adjust non-essential elements of EU legislation to new developments and to do this
under the full control of the Parliament and the Council.
Commissioner Viviane Reding assures that the Commission will, of course, always consult
broadly before making proposals for delegated acts, and will need the expertise of all European
data protection and privacy commissioners in the legislative process, as well as in the process
of delegated acts. To those who criticize the delegate acts saying that the Commission could
thereby pre-empt data protection authorities’ powers and scope for interpreting the EU law, the
Commissioner answers that the Commission proposal rather encourages national data protection
authorities to provide guidance.
In line with the new consistency mechanism in which the data protection authorities have a very
strong role, their opinion will have more weight after the reform, because once given, it can find its
way into the actual legislative text by means of the delegated acts, if the Commission, Parliament
and Council agree to make this opinion binding. With the democratic control of the law-makers,
the opinion of the data protection authorities can in fact become law without changing the law.
The consistency mechanism is there to streamline the work between the different data protection
authorities. It will considerably strengthen the weight of their opinion, because it will ensure a
harmonised approach to any issue of European relevance. Companies will not be able to so easily
ignore what one individual data protector is saying. The weight of all together makes for real power
and also strengthens independence and the position towards national governments.
Independence is the core of data protection and the Commission will come in only as the last
resort. Its power to suspend a decision will stay limited to cases where conformity with EU law
is doubtful or where there is a risk of inconsistent application of data protection rules. Similar
mechanisms exist in other policy areas, for example the telecom sector, and they have worked well.
The Commission does not have the intention to become a super-data protection authority.
By drafting the law, Commissioner Viviane Reding clearly decided that there would not be a big
single data protection authority, but that all of the authorities on the ground would stay. The
deliberation on and determination of individual cases is for the data protection authorities, not
for the Commission. But individual cases may raise important general questions about the way the
rules operate or are intended to operate. They may also highlight consistency problems which the
data protection board cannot resolve. This is where the new mechanism comes in.
13MRS VIVIANE REDING, VICE-PRESIDENT OF THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION AND COMMISSIONER
FOR EU JUSTICE AT THE SPRING CONFERENCE OF EUROPEAN DATA PROTECTION AUTHORITIES
IN LUXEMBOURG
Commissioner Viviane Reding strongly advocates independence of national data authorities; in the
case of Hungary, the Commission decided to bring the case of the personal independence of the
national data protection supervisor before the Court of Justice of the EU.
To further simplify things and to reduce the danger of duplicating work, the Commission also
proposed to set up a one-stop-shop on data protection for businesses in Europe: the national data
protection authority where the business has its main seat will act as the single contact point and
be responsible for the citizen.
To exercise this power, resources are needed and Commissioner Viviane Reding has already started
to talk with the relevant national ministers about the necessity to think about how to reinforce
the national data protection authorities. On the other hand, resources may even be saved if data
protection authorities are be able to share information more efficiently. In particular, the Article 29
Working Party will be coordinated by a fully staffed secretariat to ensure faster investigation and
decision when it comes to coordination at the EU level. The recent cases on Facebook and Google
privacy policy have shown that one single authority coordinating the investigation backed by the
expertise of all the others is an efficient way to operate.
But Commissioner Viviane Reding also knows that financial independence is a key aspect of full
independence. The Commission has therefore introduced clear indicators for assessing the level of
funding and drawing comparisons. The Fundamental Rights Agency also has carried out a useful
study on the subject. Commissioner Reding believes that there is a need to further develop and
strengthen this approach to ensure that at the national level there is a benchmarking with the best,
with the most efficient data protection authorities in the EU.
In terms of resources, she expects the Commission’s reform proposals to trigger a race to the top
and not a race to the bottom. To this end, she will send the national data protection authorities a
survey letter before summer and ask them for relevant detailed and updated information. Her aim
is to develop, by summer 2013, objective guidelines for an ideal, effective, financially independent,
national data protection authority that can make a strong contribution to cooperation and
coordination with other data protection authorities, regardless of the reform itself.
The reform entails many changes to the tasks of data protection authorities. However, this does not
automatically mean that the amount of work will increase. On the contrary, the one-stop-shop and
the end of the general notification requirement should reduce the work-load.
The regulation requires each Member State to ensure that the data protection authority is provided
with the resources, premises and infrastructure necessary for the effective performance of its duties.
This is in line with general jurisprudence of the Court of Justice of the EU. However, this does not
mean a massive increase in the financial burden of the Member States. On the contrary, it can bring
additional revenue for the Member States due to the fact that the main establishment is located
in that Member State, creates tax income, jobs and brings administrative fines on infringements.
To those who object that 2% of the annual worldwide turnover of an enterprise is a heavy fine,
Commissioner Viviane Reding replies that a fine is not necessarily there to impose, it is there to
deter. One should give the companies the possibility to adapt to the rules, to apply them but in the
end there needs to be the possibility of fines. But the final aim is not the sanction, the final aim is to
have data protection established in real terms.
In a globalised world, data protection knows no borders. Therefore the EU has to make sure that
companies can easily transfer data to third countries while not compromising the level of data
protection for individuals. In this context, Commissioner Viviane Reding welcomes the support of
the national data authorities on international transfers.
14MRS VIVIANE REDING, VICE-PRESIDENT OF THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION AND COMMISSIONER
FOR EU JUSTICE AT THE SPRING CONFERENCE OF EUROPEAN DATA PROTECTION AUTHORITIES
IN LUXEMBOURG
The Commission proposal offers many opportunities for interoperability. The Commissioner
highlights some first positive developments on the side of the United States. The Commission
shares the views of the US that regulatory action is needed on issues such as mobile data
protection, privacy rules for children, profiling or consent and sees some very clear inspirations
in the US debate which are drawn from the Commission’s reform proposals. If the EU and US work
together, their data protection standards will become world standards. The EU and US can work
towards an interoperable approach building on binding corporate rules, sectoral adequacies,
and the continuation of the Safe Harbour Agreement, as well as on existing mechanisms such as
contractual clauses that are broadly used on both sides of the Atlantic.
What is important to Europeans is that individuals have a real possibility to obtain administrative
and judicial redress. Administrative redress is to be guaranteed by an independent body. With
enforceable legal provisions, Europe wants to make sure that people’s fundamental rights are
respected. This is Europe’s goal in ongoing negotiations with the American partners.
But this is also Europe’s goal with regards to other third countries. The European Commission
is making concrete progress with New Zealand and Uruguay. The Article 31 committee will be
convened shortly so that the adequacy decisions for these two countries can be adopted shortly.
Another element of the EU data protection package is the directive on the protection of individuals
with regard to the processing of personal data by police and judicial authorities for the purposes
of preventing, investigating or detecting criminal offences. To those who are not happy with the
level of ambition of this directive, Commissioner Viviane Reding maintains that under the current
political circumstances, the directive is nevertheless a very important improvement as compared
to the actual framework decision of 2008, which is applied nearly nowhere.
The choice of a separate instrument, a directive, was made to take account of the fact that, in
this very sensitive arean some flexibility needs to be left to the Member States. On substance,
the directive contains the same principles as those enshrined in the regulation. It pursues the
twofold aim of ensuring a high protection of individuals, while also ensuring a smooth exchange
of information and cooperation between Member States’ competent authorities to prevent crime.
A big step forward, compared to the framework decision, is that the proposed directive covers not
only the cross-border cooperation, but also domestic processing by competent authorities within
a Member State. Many Member States do not like that and even the response from the European
Parliament was luke-warm so far. The new directive for justice, police and judicial cooperation also
introduces a complication to distinguish between data according to their reliability. The same goes
for different categories of individuals: data on suspects and convicted persons have to be treated
in a different way to data on victims or witnesses.
Commissioner Viviane Reding needs co-fighters and asks for the vocal support of the data protection
authorities. Her plan is to have the data protection reform politically agreed by summer 2013. The
Commission needs the co-decision of the European Parliament and has therefore until 2013 to
finish its project with the law-makers. During 2014 there will be European elections and so no more
European Parliament as from spring.
15PRÉSENTATION PAR LA COUR DES COMPTES FRANÇAISE DU RAPPORT
PUBLIC SUR « LES COÛTS DE LA FILIÈRE ÉLECTRONUCLÉAIRE EN FRANCE »
Par Ghita Kabbaj, stagiaire de l’École Nationale d’Administration auprès de M. Cretin, Membre de la Cour
Au titre du « partage d’expériences », Monsieur Cretin et l’unité de la formation professionnelle
avaient invité, Madame Michèle Pappalardo, conseillère maître à la Cour des comptes française, à
présenter le 26 avril 2012 le rapport thématique sur les coûts de la filière électronucléaire en France.
La Cour des comptes française a depuis longtemps porté une attention particulière à l’industrie
nucléaire civile du fait des importants investissements sur le long terme qu’elle nécessite. En 2005
déjà, un rapport public a été consacré au démantèlement des installations nucléaire et à la gestion
des déchets radioactifs où avaient été identifiées des insuffisances dans l’évaluation des coûts
futurs de la filière électronucléaire.
L’accident nucléaire de Fukushima au Japon en mars 2011 a ravivé en France le débat public autour
de la production d’énergie nucléaire. Les différents interlocuteurs n’avançant que rarement les
mêmes données sur les coûts de cette production, le débat ne reposait pas sur des fondations
stables.
Dans une lettre du 17 mai 2011, Monsieur François Fillon, Premier ministre, a demandé à la Cour
des comptes d’établir, d’ici le 30 janvier 2012, une expertise des coûts de la filière électronucléaire
dont la connaissance est nécessaire à l’exercice des responsabilités de l’État dans le domaine de la
production d’énergie nucléaire.
Dans le cadre de ses missions constitutionnelles d’assistance du Parlement et du Gouvernement
dans l’évaluation des politiques publiques, la Cour des comptes a choisi de répondre favorablement
à la demande du Premier ministre en intégrant cette expertise au calendrier de ses travaux en tant
que rapport thématique, donnant lieu à publication.
Ce faisant, elle a à la fois répondu à une demande d’expertise aux fins d’éclairer un choix politique
et, par l’impartialité qui s’attache à ses travaux, elle a enrichi le débat public sur cette question
sensible, d’un socle de références difficilement contestables.
Au cours des huit mois qui lui étaient impartis, elle a évalué précisément les coûts de production de
la filière électronucléaire afin de répondre à la demande du Premier ministre. Elle n’a pas cherché à
faire de comparaison de coût entre les énergies ou de scénario d’évolution du « mix » énergétique
de la France. En effet, la multiplicité des producteurs des énergies autres que nucléaire rend plus
complexe leur analyse par la Cour des comptes alors que le secteur nucléaire ne regroupe en France
qu’un petit nombre d’opérateurs (EDF, AREVA, le CEA et l’ANDRA). D’autre part, cette étude se limite
aux seuls coûts de production de l’énergie nucléaire qui représentent 40% du tarif réglementé
de l’électricité. Elle ne s’intéresse pas aux autres composantes de ce tarif telles que les coûts de
transport et de distribution ou les impôts et redevances.
Pour réaliser ce rapport, la Cour des comptes s’est appuyée sur les trois principes guidant l’ensemble
de ses travaux : l’indépendance dans la conduite des travaux, la collégialité dans la formulation
des constats et recommandations et la contradiction, écrite et formalisée, avec l’ensemble des
tiers concernés, notamment les entreprises et établissements publics de la filière nucléaire. Afin
de consolider son analyse, la Cour des comptes a fait appel à un comité d’experts composé de
spécialistes de l’énergie (aucun n’étant en poste dans ce secteur pour éviter tout conflit d’intérêt)
et d’économistes comme soutien technique. Composé à la fois de partisans et de détracteurs de
l’énergie nucléaire, ce comité d’experts a également permis de mieux appréhender les réactions
que susciterait le rapport à sa publication.
La première conclusion de ce rapport est que les différents types de coûts à la charge des
exploitants et des autorités publiques ont bien tous été identifiés et figurent dans leurs comptes.
16« LES COÛTS DE LA FILIÈRE ÉLECTRONUCLÉAIRE EN FRANCE »
Contrairement à une idée couramment répandue à propos de la production d’énergie nucléaire, il
n’y a donc pas coûts cachés, que ce soient des coûts passés, présents ou futurs.
S’agissant des coûts passés, ils concernent essentiellement la recherche (environ 1 Md€1 par an
depuis les années 1950) et la construction du parc nucléaire français avec ses 58 réacteurs de seconde
génération (96 Md€ au total en 2010). S’ajoutent à cela l’investissement initial pour les réacteurs
de première génération (6Md€), arrêtés depuis longtemps et en cours de démantèlement, et le
coût total du projet Superphénix (12Md€). Autres dépenses passées, les investissements d’AREVA
(anciennement groupe COGEMA) pour l’enrichissement et le retraitement du combustible (19Md€).
Les dépenses actuelles, liées au processus de production d’électricité, sont les coûts d’exploitation
pour le fournisseur EDF. Pour un total de 9Md€ par an, il s’agit là de l’achat et la préparation du
combustible, du personnel des centrales, des consommations externes et fonctions support. A
ces coûts d’exploitation s’ajoutent les charges présentes financées par l’État, à savoir la recherche
publique (414 M€) et les dépenses publiques relatives à la sûreté, la sécurité et l’information des
citoyens (230M€).
La production d’électricité nucléaire est spécifique dans le sens où une partie de ses coûts, et
notamment ceux de la gestion des déchets, est reportée, après la période de production elle-même,
sur une période très longue. De ce fait, le chiffrage des coûts futurs repose sur de nombreuses
hypothèses et sur des scénarios d’évolution. Le poste le plus important à provisionner est le
démantèlement des installations du parc actuel d’EDF pour un coût estimé à 18.4Md€. La Cour
des comptes estime qu’elle n’est pas en mesure de valider ou d’infirmer cette hypothèse ; elle note
tout de même que cette estimation d’EDF se situe dans la fourchette basse dans les comparaisons
internationales2. L’estimation du coût de la gestion des combustibles usés (14,8Md€) ne comporte
pas d’incertitudes majeures, contrairement à celle du coût de la gestion à long terme des déchets
(28Md€) car le projet envisagé pour leur enfouissement n’est pas encore définitif. De plus le poste
« Gestion des déchets ultimes » est aujourd’hui le moins bien provisionné (moins de 30%) dans les
comptes des exploitants.
La deuxième conclusion de la Cour des comptes est que si les coûts futurs sont tous identifiés par les
exploitants et les pouvoirs publics, de nombreuses incertitudes pèsent encore sur ces estimations
ainsi que le montrent les exemples précédents du démantèlement et du stockage des déchets
ultimes. S’agissant du financement de ces charges futures, les exploitants sont tenus de constituer
des actifs dédiés pour couvrir ces coûts3. Mais l’efficacité de ce dispositif a été compromise par de
nombreuses dérogations et par les incertitudes concernant les rendements de ces portefeuilles
d’investissement. La Cour recommande donc que, dans le contexte de la crise actuelle, l’ensemble
du dispositif soit réexaminé.
La troisième conclusion de la Cour des comptes est que l’impact d’une augmentation massive des
coûts futurs sur le coût annuel de production serait non négligeable mais limité. Le coût moyen
a donc une faible sensibilité à l’évolution des charges futures. En effet, ces charges futures sont
estimées à très long terme et ne donneront lieu à un décaissement que dans plusieurs décennies
voire siècles. Pour leur estimation, ces dépenses sont actualisées pour prendre en compte la valeur
du temps ce qui a pour effet de réduire considérablement le coût d’ensemble des dépenses futures.
1 Tous les montants sont en euros 2010.
2 Les comparaisons internationales doivent être interprétées avec la plus grande prudence du fait de la diversité des
installations et des technologies.
3 La loi du 28 juin 2006 a fixé des obligations nouvelles pour les exploitants de constituer des portefeuilles d’actifs
investis appelés « actifs dédiés », destinés à couvrir les provisions pour charges futures liées au démantèlement et à la
gestion à long terme des déchets.
17Vous pouvez aussi lire
