13.12.2013   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 365/89

1.

The European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (hereinafter ‘the Centre’, aka ‘ECDC’), which is located in Stockholm, was established by Regulation (EC) No 851/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council (1). The Centre’s main tasks are to collect and disseminate data on the prevention and control of human diseases and to provide scientific opinions on this subject. It is also required to coordinate the European network of bodies operating in this field (2).

2.

The audit approach taken by the Court comprises analytical audit procedures, direct testing of transactions and an assessment of key controls of the Centre’s supervisory and control systems. This is supplemented by evidence provided by the work of other auditors (where relevant) and an analysis of management representations.

3.

Pursuant to the provisions of Article 287 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), the Court has audited:

4.

In accordance with Articles 33 and 43 of Commission Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2343/2002 (5), the management is responsible for the preparation and fair presentation of the annual accounts of the Centre and the legality and regularity of the underlying transactions:

5.

The Court’s responsibility is, on the basis of its audit, to provide the European Parliament and the Council (7) with a statement of assurance as to the reliability of the annual accounts and the legality and regularity of the underlying transactions. The Court conducts its audit in accordance with the IFAC International Standards on Auditing and Codes of Ethics and the INTOSAI International Standards of Supreme Audit Institutions. These standards require the Court to plan and perform the audit to obtain reasonable assurance as to whether the annual accounts of the Centre are free from material misstatement and the transactions underlying them are legal and regular.

6.

The audit involves performing procedures to obtain audit evidence about the amounts and disclosures in the accounts and the legality and regularity of the underlying transactions. The procedures selected depend on the auditor’s judgement, which is based on an assessment of the risks of material misstatement of the accounts and material non-compliance by the underlying transactions with the requirements in the legal framework of the European Union, whether due to fraud or error. In assessing these risks, the auditor considers any internal controls relevant to the preparation and fair presentation of the accounts, as well as the supervisory and control systems that are implemented to ensure the legality and regularity of underlying transactions, and designs audit procedures that are appropriate in the circumstances. The audit also entails evaluating the appropriateness of accounting policies, the reasonableness of accounting estimates and the overall presentation of the accounts.

7.

The Court considers that the audit evidence obtained is sufficient and appropriate to provide a basis for its statement of assurance.

8.

In the Court’s opinion, the Centre’s annual accounts present fairly, in all material respects, its financial position as at 31 December 2012 and the results of its operations and its cash flows for the year then ended, in accordance with the provisions of its Financial Regulation and the accounting rules adopted by the Commission’s accounting officer.

9.

In the Court’s opinion, the transactions underlying the annual accounts for the year ended 31 December 2012 are legal and regular in all material respects.

10.

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

11.

The opinion on the legality and regularity of the Centre’s transactions was qualified for the year 2011 because the Centre did not respect the maximum amount of a framework contract from 2009. According to this framework contract, the Centre could sign specific contracts with selected suppliers up to a maximum amount of 9 million euro. By the end of 2011 however, payments of 12,2 million euro had been made.

12.

In order to purchase essential services for the continuation of the related project, the Centre in 2012 concluded additional specific contracts for an amount of 2,5 million euro. Together with 2,7 million euro of payments made in 2012 for contracts signed already in 2011, payments made totalled 17,4 million euro by the end of 2012. Whilst payments above the 9 million euro ceiling set in the framework contract are irregular, the Centre has taken corrective action in 2012 and signed a replacement framework contract in June 2012 (no further payments will be made under the old contract) and has improved monitoring the consumption of framework contracts in general.

13.

The 2012 payments amounting to 5,2 million euro stem from failures in previous years when the ceiling of the framework contract was not respected. They relate to contractual obligations stemming from previous years (2,7 million euro) or taken in 2012 for business continuity reasons (2,5 million euro) pending the finalisation of the procurement procedure for the new framework contract. Given the corrective action taken by the Centre in 2012, the Court has not qualified the opinion on the legality and regularity of transactions this year.

14.

In 2012, the Centre awarded grants to research institutions and individuals. Total grant expenditure amounted to 752 000 euro, representing 1,4 % of 2012 operating expenditure. The Centre’s ex ante verifications before reimbursement of costs claimed by beneficiaries consist of a desk analysis of cost claims and partly also of audit certificates issued by independent audit firms contracted by the beneficiaries. The Centre does not usually obtain from beneficiaries any documents to substantiate the eligibility and accuracy of the costs claimed. In order to strengthen controls, the Centre has adopted an ex post verification strategy and planned for its implementation in 2012. However, it experienced a 10-month delay in gaining access to an interinstitutional audit contract and, at the time of the audit, no ex post verifications of 2012 grant expenditure had yet taken place. For the transactions audited by the Court, supporting documentation was obtained by the Centre on the Court’s behalf which provided reasonable assurance as to their legality and regularity.

15.

Budget implementation rates were satisfactory for title I (staff expenditure) and title II (administrative expenditure) at 97 % and 80 % of committed appropriations respectively. While the level of carry-overs related to title III is high at 8,3 million euro (41 % of title III appropriations committed), this did not arise from delays in the implementation of the Centre’s Annual Work Programme, but reflects the multi-annual nature of activities. The Centre has adopted a budgetary planning module that is linked directly to its Annual Work Programme and payments were planned and made according to operational needs.

16.

An overview of the corrective actions taken in response to the Court's previous year's comments is provided in Annex I.