13.12.2013   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 365/113

1.

The European Fisheries Control Agency (hereinafter ‘the Agency’, aka ‘EFCA’), which is located in Vigo, was established by Council Regulation (EC) No 768/2005 (1). The Agency’s main task is to organise the operational coordination of fisheries control and inspection activities by the Member States in order to ensure an effective and uniform application of the rules of the Common Fisheries Policy (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 Agency’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 Agency 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 Agency 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 Agency’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 level of committed appropriations for the different titles varied between 94 % and 99 % of total appropriations, indicating that legal commitments were signed in a timely manner. However, the level of committed appropriations carried over to 2013 was high for title II (administrative expenditure) at 35 % and title III (operating expenditure) at 46 %. For title II, this was caused, to a large extent, by events beyond the Agency’s control, such as the late invoicing of the 2012 office rental costs by the Spanish authorities. Also, in order to meet the increased operational needs that it was faced with in the last quarter of 2012, the Agency ordered a high volume of goods and services for which delivery was still pending by the year end. For title III, an important reason for the high level of carry-overs was the considerable workload faced by the agency as a result of the large number of IT projects that were either launched or ongoing during 2012. This workload had an impact on the timeliness of procurement procedures in the case of two IT projects launched in 2012. Furthermore, expenses related to training and missions undertaken by staff and experts in the last quarter of 2012 were only due for reimbursement at the beginning of 2013.

12.

In response to the Court’s 2011 report, the Agency took corrective action in June 2012 to improve the transparency of recruitment procedures. In 2012, the only weaknesses identified related to three audited recruitment procedures that were initiated prior to the Court’s 2011 report: the vacancy notices did not provide information to the candidates on complaint and appeal procedures; candidates were given a global score instead of one score for each of the selection criteria; there was no evidence that the questions for interviews and written tests had been set before the date of the examinations.

13.

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