15.12.2011   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 366/140

1.

Eurojust, which is located in The Hague, was set up by Council Decision 2002/187/JHA (1) with a view to stepping up the fight against serious organised crime. Its objective is to improve the coordination of investigations and prosecutions covering the territories of several Member States of the European Union, as well as that of non-member States (2).

2.

After the adoption of an amending budget, the Eurojust 2010 final budget amounted to 32,3 million euros, compared with 28,2 million euros the previous year. The number of staff employed by Eurojust at the end of the year was 295, compared with 248 the previous year.

3.

Pursuant to the provisions of Article 287(1), second subparagraph, of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, the Court has audited the annual accounts (3) of Eurojust, which comprise the ‘financial statements’ (4) and the ‘reports on the implementation of the budget’ (5) for the financial year ended 31 December 2010, and the legality and regularity of the transactions underlying those accounts.

4.

This Statement of Assurance is addressed to the European Parliament and to the Council in accordance with Article 185(2) of Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 (6).

5.

As authorising officer, the Director implements the revenue and expenditure of the budget in accordance with the financial rules of Eurojust, under his own responsibility and within the limits of the authorised appropriations (7). The Director is responsible for putting in place (8) the organisational structure and the internal management and control systems and procedures relevant for drawing up final accounts (9) that are free from material misstatement, whether due to fraud or error, and for ensuring that the transactions underlying those accounts are legal and regular.

6.

The Court’s responsibility is to provide, on the basis of its audit, a statement of assurance as to the reliability of the annual accounts of Eurojust and the legality and regularity of the transactions underlying them.

7.

The Court conducted its audit in accordance with the IFAC and ISSAI (10) International Auditing Standards and Codes of Ethics. Those standards require the Court to comply with ethical requirements and to plan and perform the audit so as to obtain reasonable assurance as to whether the accounts are free of material misstatement and whether the underlying transactions are legal and regular.

8.

The Court’s audit involves performing procedures to obtain audit evidence of the amounts and disclosures in the accounts and of the legality and regularity of the transactions underlying them. The procedures selected, including its assessment of the risks of material misstatement of the accounts or of illegal or irregular transactions, whether due to fraud or error, depend on its audit judgement. In making those risk assessments, internal controls relevant to the entity’s preparation and presentation of accounts are considered in order to design audit procedures that are appropriate in the circumstances. The Court’s audit also includes evaluating the appropriateness of the accounting policies used and the reasonableness of the accounting estimates made by management, as well as evaluating the overall presentation of the accounts.

9.

The Court believes that the audit evidence obtained is sufficient and appropriate to provide a basis for the opinions set out below.

10.

In the Court’s opinion, Eurojust’s Annual Accounts (11) present fairly, in all material respects, its financial position as of 31 December 2010 and the results of its operations and its cash flows for the year then ended, in accordance with the provisions of its Financial Regulation.

11.

In the Court’s opinion, the transactions underlying Eurojust’s Annual Accounts for the financial year ended 31 December 2010 are, in all material respects, legal and regular.

12.

The comments which follow do not call the Court’s opinions into question.

13.

The level of Title III operational expenditure carried forward to 2011 amounted to 38 % of the Title III budget. This level of carry-over was excessive and at odds with the principle of annuality.

14.

The Director of Eurojust is accountable vis-à-vis the discharge authority for all of the duties detailed in paragraph 5, ‘The Director’s responsibility’, however he is not de facto responsible for the majority of the daily management decisions, which are taken by the College of Eurojust on the basis of the relevant provisions of the founding Regulation (12). There is scope to consider redefining the respective roles and responsibilities of the actors involved to effectively deal with this accountability overlap.

15.

With regard to procurement procedures, in one case the evaluation committee failed to apply the weightings published in the tender specifications.

16.

Despite the fact that recruitments cannot be made from expired reserve lists, an official was recruited in 2010 using a reserve list which had expired in January 2009.

17.

Eurojust’s rate of vacant posts at the end of 2009, 24 %, had been reduced to 13 % by the end of 2010.